Paedophile asks Google to remove pages about his case in wake of historic European Court ruling
It has also emerged that a former British politician seeking re-election has demanded that links to information about his behaviour in office be taken down
Thursday 15 May 2014
Paedophiles, scandal-hit politicians and others seeking to cleanse their online reputations are demanding that Google remove any links to inconvenient truths about their past, in the wake of a historic legal judgement, it has emerged.
The 'take down' requests to the world's biggest internet search engine came after a European Court ruling on Tuesday that people have the “right to be forgotten.” The controversial decision, by the Court of Justice of the European Union, was in response to a case brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results had infringed his privacy. It applies to all web search companies and will affect hundreds of millions of people living in Europe.
The ruling, described as “disappointing” by Google, means that web search engines face legal action if they refuse to remove information deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.”
And it has emerged that a former British politician seeking re-election has demanded that links to information about his behaviour in office be removed, while a man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction be deleted. And a doctor wants negative reviews from patients removed from the results, according to the BBC.
The court decision allowing such demands is in contrast to assurances made by the EU's advocate general last year that search engines were not obliged to honour such 'take down' requests. And although EU Commissioner Viviane Reding supported this week's ruling as “a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans”, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales dubbed it “one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I've ever seen” and warned: “When will a European Court demand that Wikipedia censor an article with truthful information because an individual doesn't like it?”
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman, Google, admitted there are “many open questions” when asked about the impact of the ruling, during the company's annual shareholder meeting on Wednesday. “A simple way of understanding what happened here is that you have a collision between a right to be forgotten and a right to know. From Google's perspective that's a balance,” he commented. “Google believes having looked at the decision, which is binding, that the balance that was struck was wrong.”
The company will need an “army of removal experts” to comply with the ruling, according to a source close to the internet giant. And concern is mounting that there will be a wave of demands by people wishing to clean up their past. Emma Carr, director of privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: “It is hardly surprising that people, intent on rewriting their own history, have already requested that Google remove links to articles referring to their past.” She added: “Those arguing that this ruling is a successful move towards 'the right to be forgotten' are quite simply wrong, it is going to be of huge detriment to freedom of speech.” And Ms Carr warned: “There is little doubt that making intermediaries responsible for the actions of the content of other people will inevitably lead to greater surveillance and a risk of censorship.”
In a statement, a Google spokesman said: “The ruling has significant implications for how we handle take down requests.” They added: “As soon as we have thought through exactly how this will work, which may take several weeks, we will let our users know.”
As anti-Semitic attacks rise, Grant Feller re-evaluates his identity
Kirstie Allsopp has waded into the female fertility debate again
...and it wasn't caused by an asteroid crash, as first thought
Savoury patisserie is a thing now
Meet the primary school where every day is National Poetry Day
Gillian Anderson lays into gender disparity in Hollywood
Life & Style blogs
An app for the amorous: Could Good2Go end disputes about sexual consent - without being a passion-killer?
Windows 10 release: Microsoft bypasses 'Windows 9' with new operating system
The Fappening: After the third wave of leaked celebrity photos, why can't we stop it?
Stoptober: How I stopped smoking for good
Couples who gush about each other are the 'most annoying' Facebook users
Exclusive: 'Putin's Russia has been my biggest regret,' says Nato's outgoing Secretary General
Former Tory donor Arron Banks ups his Ukip donation to £1million following William Hague 'nobody' comment
The Osborne Ultimatum: Chancellor’s benefits freeze bombshell will affect ten million households
There’s no excuse for Dave Lee Travis’s behaviour, but we need to keep a sense of proportion
Mark Reckless becomes second Tory MP to defect to Ukip in a month
Should gay sex be illegal? 16% of Britons think so
- 1 Snoop Dogg and Jared Leto buy a stake in Reddit as A-list invests $50m
- 2 Prince held a Facebook Q&A and this is the only question he answered...
- 3 35,000 walrus gather on north-west Alaska beach 'for a rest'
- 4 Brad Pitt, on the moment he completely lost his temper with Clint Eastwood's son
- 5 A teacher speaks out: 'I'm effectively being forced out of a career that I wanted to love'
- < Previous
- Next >
iJobs Gadgets & Tech
£35000 - £40000 Per Annum: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: Our client, a prog...
£40000 - £45000 Per Annum + benefits: Clearwater People Solutions Ltd: Domino ...
£35000 - £45000 per annum + benefits: Ashdown Group: A highly successful, inte...
£18000 - £23000 per annum + OTE: SThree: SThree are seeking Trainee Recruitmen...