Google Right To Be Forgotten Report Self-Serving Publicity Stunt, Consumer Watchdog Says; Group Says Privacy Right Should Be Adapted For United States, Not Just Europe

Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:26 am

    SANTA MONICA, CA – A Google-commissioned report advising that the Internet giant implement the right to be forgotten only in Europe is little more than a self-serving publicity stunt, Consumer Watchdog said today, adding that the important privacy protection should be implemented in the United States.

    “The right to be forgotten is an important privacy protection in the digital age. It’s not censorship; it merely gives people some control over access to irrelevant information about them from the past,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director.  “Instead of trying to limit its scope, Google should be working to adapt the policy for the United States.”

    In May the European Court of Justice ruled that a person has the right to request the removal of search engine links to information that is inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or excessive.  The removal isn’t automatic if requested. There needs to be a balance between the individual’s privacy and public’s right to know in making a decision to remove a link.

    Since May Google has only implemented the ruling on European Internet domains like Google.ie, Google.co.uk, Google.fr and Google.de. The advisory panel endorsed – though not unanimously – Google’s approach.

    The Google panel’s recommendation and Google’s implementation are at odds with the position of the Article 29 Working Party, the organization of all European data protection authorities. The group has said the right should be applied to all Google Internet domains, including Google.com.

    In its Transparency Report Google says it has received evaluated 769,858 URLS for removal and removed 257,973 or 40.3 percent of them. Here is an example of a link Google says it removed: A woman requested the removal of a link to decades-old article about her husband’s murder, which included her name. Google removed the link from search results for her name.

    Read Google’s Transparency Report about links removed here: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/?hl=en

    “As Google’s own examples clearly show, removal won’t always happen, but the balance Google has found between privacy and the public’s right to know demonstrates the company can make the right to be forgotten work,” wrote Simpson. “Americans deserve the same right to be forgotten.  With Google’s repeated claims to care about privacy, the company should be ashamed that it’s not treating people on both sides of the Atlantic the same way.”

    Read the Google Advisory Council right to be forgotten here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1UgZshetMd4cEI3SjlvV0hNbDA/view?pli=1

    – 30 –

    Visit our website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.orggooglebuilding

    This post was written by:

    John M. Simpson

    - who has written 414 posts on Inside Google.


    Contact the author

    Leave a Reply

    ルイヴィトンは旅行の芸術なので、ルイヴィトンは比較的人気の高いブランドで、現在は手動で機械的に混合してパッケージングを行っています。 ルイヴィトンiphoneケースの海外での価格は、国民に比較的近いです。 しかし、エルメスは異なっています。馬が馬を生産するのは初めてです。そのため、エルメスは主に手作りの芸術であり、一般的な意味では贅沢ではありません。 エルメスiphoneケースのすべての製品は、芸術作品として楽しんで保存することができます。 ルイ?ヴィトンは、価格面ではルイ?ヴィトンよりもはるかに高いですが、質の面ではそれほど優れているわけではありませんが、近年では生産の増加により衰退の兆しが見えてきました。 最も顕著なパフォーマンスは、ブランド携帯ケース伝統的に手作業で加工された部品の多くが現在機械加工されていることです。加工の質は向上しますが、機械と労働は必ずしも成績ではありません。