Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Technology

QuickSort

Where the Globe divides the high from the
low elements of Internet and digital culture

Entry archive:

An internet surfer views the Google home page at a cafe in London in this August 13, 2004 file photo. (STEPHEN HIRD/REUTERS)
An internet surfer views the Google home page at a cafe in London in this August 13, 2004 file photo. (STEPHEN HIRD/REUTERS)

Google restores links to British newspapers in 'right to be forgotten' flap Add to ...

Google Inc. on Thursday reversed its decision to remove several links to stories in Britain’s Guardian newspaper, underscoring the difficulty the search engine is having implementing Europe’s “right to be forgotten” ruling.

The Guardian protested the removal of its stories describing how a soccer referee lied about reversing a penalty decision. It was unclear who asked Google to remove the stories.

Reuters May. 30 2014, 1:08 PM EDT

Video: Google bends to 'right to be forgotten'

More Related to this Story

Separately, Google has not restored links to a BBC article that described how former Merrill Lynch Chief Executive Officer E. Stanley O’Neal was ousted after the investment bank racked up billions of dollars in losses.

Mr. O’Neal said on Thursday he has “no knowledge” of an apparent effort to remove a BBC article mentioning him. The previous day, BBC economics editor Robert Peston suggested O’Neal may have asked the search engine to exclude a 2007 blog post that mentioned him from its results under a European privacy rule.

Peston’s suggestion that O’Neal had the search results tweaked came in a new blog entry posted on Wednesday. In an e-mail to Reuters, O’Neal said “I have no knowledge of it whatsoever.”

The incidents underscore the uncertainty around how Google intends to adhere to a May European court ruling that gave its citizens the “right to be forgotten:” to request the scrubbing of links to articles that pop up under a name search.

Privacy advocates say the backlash around press censorship highlight the potential dangers of the ruling and its unwieldiness in practice. That in turn may benefit Google by stirring debate about the soundness of the ruling, which the Internet search leader criticized the ruling from the outset.

Google, which has received more than 70,000 requests, began acting upon them in past days. And it notified the BBC and the Guardian, which in turn publicized the moves.

The incidents suggest that requesting removal of a link may actually bring the issue back into the public spotlight, rather than obscure it. That possibility may give people pause before submitting a “right to be forgotten” request.

“At least as it looks now, there are definitely some unworkable components,” said Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Parker Higgins. “We’ve seen a number of situations in the past few days, where somebody in an effort to get a certain thing forgotten has brought more attention to it than ever was there before.”

“It does make you think that maybe if you’re actually trying to make an episode of your history be forgotten, this channel maybe isn’t the best way.”

Google’s objective is to protect the reliability and effectiveness of its search franchise. It remains uncertain how it adjudicates requests, or how they intend to carry them out going forward.

“Their current approach appears to be an overly broad interpretation,” a spokeswoman for the Guardian said. “If the purpose of the judgment is not to enable censorship of publishers by the back door, then we’d encourage Google to be transparent about the criteria it is using to make these decisions, and how publishers can challenge them.”

Google, which controls more than 90 per cent of European online searches, said it was a learning process.

“This is a new and evolving process for us. We’ll continue to listen to feedback and will also work with data protection authorities and others as we comply with the ruling,” the company said in a statement.

Notifying media outlets about scrubbed links has the effect of enhancing transparency, privacy advocates say. It might also prompt European courts to re-examine aspects of the ruling, including how it affects media outlets’ coverage.

“It’s terra incognito for everyone,” said Jonathan Zittrain, co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society. “If sites that receive the notices choose to publicize them in ways that end up boomeranging against the people requesting, that might cause the courts to examine what those sites are doing.”

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeTechnology

 
Security Price Change
GOOG-Q Google 571.60 -15.82
-2.693 %
Add to watchlist
Live Discussion of GOOG on StockTwits
More Discussion on GOOG-Q

More Related to this Story

Topics:

In the know

Most popular video »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most Popular Stories