Google could do nothing but to follow a recent court ruling in the European Union allowing its citizens the “Right To Be Forgotten” in the Internet search engine’s query results, specifically deleting information deemed outdated or irrelevant by the citizen who requested the removal.
The Internet company said on Thursday that it started the crackdown on personal information or content to be removed from its search results as requested by a number of individuals, including Spanish calligrapher and lawyer Mario Costeja Gonzalez, who sought for removal of a newspaper link published in March 1998 that contains information regarding his financial issues in the past.
The footnote, “some results may have been removed under data-protection law in Europe,” also appears below the search for Gonzalez’s name. A link pointing to a page where the European Court of Justice’s May 2014 ruling was explained also appears in the search results.
Such right and removal only takes effect within EU countries, however. This means the content deleted will still appear in non-EU countries.
"Mr. Gonzalez's desire for Internet anonymity is still some way off," said Richard Cumbley, a Linklaters lawyer in London. "A search for 'gonzalez 1998 vanguardia' will still return a link to that notice."
Cumbley also added Internet users in Europe could still get the unfiltered results when they re-route access instead to a non-EU server.
Spokesman Al Verney of Google Europe revealed having a considerable amount of requests to be done.
"Each request has to be assessed individually," said Verney.
As soon as the “right to be forgotten” was recognized, Google created an online form where users in the European Union can register complaints. In a span of four days, it already received over 41,000 removal requests. Research says over 50,000 individuals from various nationalities now filed removal requests.
Data protection agencies in Europe, meanwhile, said the recent EU ruling would bring about legitimate and nonlegitimate complaints from Internet users. The ruling also received various reactions from individuals and organizations concerned on privacy and freedom rights.
Critics, for instance, said the “right to be forgotten” is clearly a form of censorship and that it may lead to abuse from personalities such as politicians and lawbreakers. While supporters were all embracing of the ruling, critics reminded Google that it should not delete links to important content when public interest or the right to know overshadows the right to privacy of an individual.
In fact, Google was quick to clarify that some requests may go beyond its jurisdiction.
"We'll also look at whether there's a public interest in the information remaining in our search results. These are difficult judgments and as a private organisation, we may not be in a good position to decide on your case,” said Google.
