Google Reveals It Has Received Over 145,000 ‘Right To Be Forgotten’ Requests

Chuck Bednar for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online
Google has received over 145,000 URL removal requests since the European Union Court of Justice court ruled in May that people had a “right to be forgotten,” the Mountain View, California-based tech giant revealed in its latest Transparency Report.
Those requests pertained to a total of nearly 500,000 individual web pages, 41.8 percent of which were removed and 58.2 percent of which were denied, the search engine’s report added. Google noted that, in assessing all of the requests, it had to weigh the rights of the individual against public interest in the published content.
According to the Daily Mail, more than 18,000 requests pertaining to 60,000 web links had originated from the UK, and 35 percent (18,459) of those pages had been removed. That represents the third highest number by country in Europe, trailing only France (29,010) and Germany (25,078). In all, Google is receiving approximately 1,000 requests per day.
It was back in May that the EU court first ruled that people had a “right to be forgotten” and that Google had a responsibility to remove “outdated” and potentially sensitive information about individuals. In its ruling, the Court of Justice said that search engines were responsible for processing the data appearing on third-party web pages, and that people had the right to file a request to have certain items stricken from the search results.
The majority of the requests received by Google to date involve Facebook pages, according to reports published by the Guardian on Sunday. The social media website was at the heart of 3,353 link removal requests throughout Europe, followed by profileengine.com (3298), YouTube (2,397), Badoo (2,206) and Google Groups (1,949).
Google also listed some examples of the requests they had received, including a media professional who requested the removal of articles reporting on potentially embarrassing content (that request was denied) and one from a doctor asking the company to pull over 50 links to news stories about a botched medical procedure, 47 of which were removed and the other three were found not to mention the procedures.
“Deciding which links to take down and which ones to leave up can be challenging,” explained CNET’s Lance Whitney. “But based on the above examples and others listed by Google, one factor that seems to play into the decision is whether the request comes from someone accused of or convicted or a crime or someone who is a victim or innocent party in a crime or case of wrongdoing.”
“Though Google makes the decisions on which individual requests to honor, the company has also formed an advisory council, which discusses and debates the entire process,” he added. “Google, which is hosting a series of meetings across Europe on the ‘right to be forgotten,’ has invited Europeans to weigh in with their comments on the ruling via an online form.”
In related news, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Tokyo District Court ruled on Thursday that Google had to remove some search engine results pertaining to a Japanese man because they violated his privacy. The court ruled that 120 out of 230 pages suggesting that the individual had previously been involved in criminal activity had to be deleted.
“The plaintiff requested an injunction in June from the Tokyo court as he felt his life was endangered by the results that came up when his name was entered in a Google search,” explained WSJ reporter Megumi Fujikawa. While the Tokyo court’s ruling was “a provisional disposition” and not a legislative order like the EU verdict, the decision is nonetheless “likely to fuel debate around the globe among freedom of speech advocates,” Fujikawa added.
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Tomohiro Kanda, called the ruling “good news for those who feel their lives are threatened and are sickened physically and psychologically by Google’s search results,” while the search engine company released a statement noting that it was “currently reviewing this preliminary injunction” but that it had a policy of removing pages when required to do so by law enforcement officials.
—–
May we suggest – How Google Works by Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg. Today, Google is a global icon that regularly pushes the boundaries of innovation in a variety of fields. HOW GOOGLE WORKS is an entertaining, page-turning primer containing lessons that Eric and Jonathan learned as they helped build the company.
—–