Google Must Delete Search Results About You If They're Fake, EU Court Rules (politico.eu) 46
People in Europe can get Google to delete search results about them if they prove the information is "manifestly inaccurate," the EU's top court has ruled. From a report: The case kicked off when two investment managers requested Google to dereference results of a search made on the basis of their names, which provided links to certain articles criticising that group's investment model. They say those articles contain inaccurate claims. Google refused to comply, arguing that it was unaware whether the information contained in the articles was accurate or not. But in a ruling Thursday, the Court of Justice of the European Union opened the door to the investment managers being able to successfully trigger the so-called "right to be forgotten" under the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. "The right to freedom of expression and information cannot be taken into account where, at the very least, a part -- which is not of minor importance -- of the information found in the referenced content proves to be inaccurate," the court said in a press release accompanying the ruling.
Seems an odd form of repression (Score:2)
Rick santorum (Score:4, Insightful)
The question for google is which search result for Santorum is fake? Rick ? Or neither since both are true
Re: (Score:2)
How does "right to be forgotten", include articles on other websites?
What are you talking about? How does it not?
Seems an arbitrary overreach by the EU courts
I agree to a degree, except that spreading false information about people is libel, and that's already generally illegal — pretty much everywhere if it's actually doing harm, and in most places if it's malicious even if no harm can be shown.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems an arbitrary overreach by the EU courts
I agree to a degree, except that spreading false information about people is libel, and that's already generally illegal — pretty much everywhere if it's actually doing harm, and in most places if it's malicious even if no harm can be shown.
Then shouldn't they be going after the website for saying an inaccurate thing rather than going after Google for pointing out that the website said an inaccurate thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Then shouldn't they be going after the website for saying an inaccurate thing rather than going after Google for pointing out that the website said an inaccurate thing?
I don't see any reason why the law wouldn't let them do both things. For the most part if you can't search for something on the internet it might as well not exist, so going after Google is probably the easiest move.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like the drunk searching for his car keys underneath a street light -- he knows he left them at the bar, but the street light is where he can see, so he looks there because it's the easiest thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can really hear what you sound like with a boot in your mouth
Re:Seems an odd form of repression (Score:4, Informative)
You misunderstand the ruling. Right to be forgotten already includes Google results. Google specifically refused to delete some reported content because google could not validate whether it was true or not. So they error on truth and kept it. They lost in court.
So nothing changed except Google may no longer assume something is true if it's reported false. Well they can, but they'll risk fines. They are also free to investigate those unaffiliated sites if they want, but that's going to cost them a lot of resources and time. They aren't going to do this on trivial sites unless they're being paid. So maybe it will open a new business market for them - who knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really want Google to be the arbiter of truth?
I'm fine with an EU court making those decisions for EU citizens. If they don't care about the government restricting their freedom of speech, that's their problem. But to let Google do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I understand the ruling fine. I'm quite aware that the right to be forgotten includes Google results. I was more questioning the general "fairness" of that doctrine on that grounds that it seems to treat different parties unequally. Specially why does the party posting the lie get off easier than the party linking to the lie?
If the argument is that having "false, misleading or out of date" information kicking around the internet is "harmful" to society then I'm sympathetic to that argument. But perso
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that we may soon have search alternatives, ala GPT-3. In GPT-3's case, you don't need google to demonstrate the data, the data just must exist in a way that the AI can consume. Even if they change the law to insist the AI doesn't consume "questionable" data, AI might infer some of the misinformation. For example, certain behaviors might imply you are gay. If the AI can collect enough of that data, it might conclude you are gay, even if it never sees any statements around this.
In the same way, i
Re: (Score:2)
"investment managers" is the key here. probably nobody cares about some crappy website, but if anyone googles their name and fishy stuff pops up they won't even bother with a cursory background check, let alone trying to figure out if that stuff is true or no. that's quite bad for their business, and with enough money and good friends you can sue anyone, even google.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, if the articles on those websites are, in fact, libelous and defamatory, it would be okay... 100% appropriate even... to sue them, have the false content taken down, and even pursue damages. Anat is pure bullshit here is going after Google instead of the original lies. After that, the next time Google spidered the site the libel or defamation would fall out of the index organically.
Attacking Google instead is either an avarcious seeking out of the deepest pockets, or simple xenophobia; both utterly
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Seems an odd form of repression (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet there are malicious actors who continue to post garbage despite the courts basically jailing the person spreading the rumors.
And there are plenty of sites that don't care - they exist in some oddball location away from legal repercussions so it doesn't matter that the content they post is defamatory - no court would be able to reach them, so that content stays up. So you have to go after the next best thing - the index that would host links to it.
There's a case against a jilted lover who created a revenge porn website purely to destroy his ex-girlfriend, and despite being jailed and having restrictions put on his behavior, the website is still up. He has vowed to keep the crap going no matter what happens to him, and pretty much the only way to get that content taken down would be to black hole the website completely, perhaps through use of laws like this. The case has been going on for over 5 years now - as in, the court has ordered the website taken down 5 years ago and it's still up, the guy is still flagrantly violating the rulings and it continues.
https://vancouversun.com/news/... [vancouversun.com]
Crap happens. In fact, Google has been requested to delete the links to the website, but you know how SEO is. A determined enough person can make sure it keeps showing up over and over again.
Re: Who decides what is inaccurate? (Score:2)
Is Google just supposed to take the word of every rando that is unhappy at negative publicity that anything said against them is false?
Yes.
If you are a website removed from search results can you counter-claim that something negative was true and your result should be re-insstated?
Website or individual, I don't think there's a "right to be remembered" like the right to be forgotten. If you request to have search results deleted, you are gone. No going back.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Google just supposed to take the word of every rando that is unhappy at negative publicity that anything said against them is false?
Yes.
just to point out: "No" would have been an equally valid (and wrong) answer. there is no right choice in this conundrum, both are bad: it's all about balancing freedom of information and right to privacy. as it stands, it's just the usual hypocrisy where those who can afford it get their way, and those who do not just have to suck it up.
Website or individual, I don't think there's a "right to be remembered" like the right to be forgotten. If you request to have search results deleted, you are gone. No going back.
you misunderstood. this isn't about any right to be remembered but about freedom of information, free speech and subreptitious censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's also about being protected against libel. I don't think there *is* a correct answer. Determining what is really true can be very expensive, websites can be hosted anywhere in the world. Etc. Also there are other search engines.
OTOH, if someone can prove that a statement about them is a lie, it's reasonable to keep it from being spread. And (IIUC) the EU "right to be forgottten" doesn't apply to only false statements unless you are a public figure, so for most people just a request to ha
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, if someone can prove that a statement about them is a lie, it's reasonable to keep it from being spread.
fair. but the question said literally "take the word of every rando that is unhappy" :-)
i reckon that in this case they had proof, though to be completely honest i didn't read the details. however reasonable proof should be absolutely required to take anything down, else this would be far too easy to exploit.
off the record, the more i think of it the more i doubt "right to be forgotten" is actually a good idea. too hard to implement, too easy to exploit, for what and who is responsible? the messenger? well,
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like the burden of proof is still on the person/entity making the request to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that the phrase "manifestly inaccurate" is key here.
In order to "manifestly" prove that something which might be published is false you have to have actual evidence that directly contradicts any evidence that may have appeared to support the idea that it was ever true.
In other words, it would take more than just an allegation... there would have to be some kind
Newspaper (Score:1)
Delete? (Score:2)
Delete? But delete does not mean gone forever. If Google had to "irreversible encrypt" and then delete...
Google must delete, but they can "undelete"...
JoshK.
Any personal name search (Score:2)
Shut up, we're from the government (Score:1)
The right to freedom of expression and information cannot be taken into account where, at the very least, a part -- which is not of minor importance -- of the information found in the referenced content proves to be inaccurate.
So basically the government will tell you what is the truth, and if you speak anything, even partially not agreeing with the statement of truth from the government, you are required to be silent. That is basically what this ruling says.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No the government isn't telling you anything. This is a court ruling. The government's job is to ensure that the next generation grows up with a curriculum where they learn basic civics and therefore can tell the difference.
And no you're not free to say whatever you want. Every country including free speech red white and blue Jesus land has laws that can punish specific misinformation. The difference is whether you pay a fine, or go to jail (only the government can put you in jail).
Re: (Score:1)
What misinformation would an average American go to jail for please tell... and don't come with the debunked 'You can't yell fire in the theater' because, that defense has been overruled a long time ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Words / Bee Gees (Score:2)
Smile an everlasting smile
A smile can bring you near to me
Don't ever let me find you down
'Cause that would bring a tear to me
You think that I don't even mean
A single word I say
It's only words and words are all I have
To take your heart away
US, not EU: I did not have sex with that woman. (Score:1)
People in Europe can get Google to delete search results about them if they prove the information is "manifestly inaccurate,"
The cigar had sex, I just smoked it afterwards.
From someone's standpoint, it's ALL fake, lies, and inaccurate. And the faster it goes away, the happier I'll be.
And "inaccurate" as a consideration? Why that's even better! You got the color of the paint on the wall [9to5mac.com] wrong, so remove all articles about me. And even if you fix it, there's always be something else wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
we believe you did not have sex with that woman, its pretty doubtful you have had sex at all
Fake news ... (Score:2)
Trump: Hold my Diet Coke!!
Google: Receives a 40 foot container full of incoherent hand-written rambling complaints going back 76 years listing criticisms of him that Trump considers fake news.
Impossible? (Score:2)
Empowerment is good (Score:2)
Why would Google want to spread false info? (Score:2)
Arent they opposed to misinformation and disinformation?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Google want to spread false info?
Google is used because it links to what people are trying to find.
Corporations aren't people (Score:2)
They have no rights.
Only people have rights.
Yes, this includes your AI bots.