I'm a journalist looking for a way to identify results removed under EU law. I'd like a big set of pages to search/analyse.
I'm struggling to get my head around how to do this. If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears!
Afais this is the "best" data you get from Google for this topic: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri...
When you look at the other transparency reports you'll notice that you're able to search through other types of removed results (e.g. copyright violations), but that this is not possible in the right to be forgotten area.
[Edit] But you could ask any big newspaper Website for help. They receive a notice in their Search Console when a result is taken down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f...
Not sure if there's any more recent version of that page.
From Wikipedia[1]:
> The archive got a boost when Google began submitting its notices in 2002. Google began to do so in response to the publicity generated when the Church of Scientology convinced Google to remove references and links to an anti-Scientology web site, Operation Clambake, in April 2002.
> Can you provide more detailed statistics about the nature of these requests and removals?
> We have provided statistics about the scale of our delisting process—updated daily—since October 2014 in this Transparency Report and have added anonymised examples of delisting decisions to provide color. Additional data on common material factors is available for download here. We continue to explore ways to provide more transparency into delisting decisions in an operationally efficient manner and with due regard to the sensitive and private nature of the requests.
There are some people who abuse the system (who I hope you identify), and also some people who really should have the right to be forgotten.
As far as I can tell, using a US based VPN/proxy does not censor results - at least, it does not show the message.
Therefore, you just need to cross-reference the results from different geographic regions. However, it will be difficult to tell whether a certain result is missing due to censorship, or the fact that result rankings are slightly different for different countries.
Once you find a "suspicious" result, I guess you could try searching direct quotes from the article - If it doesn't show up in those results, then it's probably censored.
This process will need to be automated, if you want to check every name.
I believe google only removes the results from searches for the specific name. The page can still show up if you search for something else.
Other than that: +1 for your request for responsibility. I disagree with the court ruling, but having the right to publish some information doesn't always mean it's a good idea.
Google has details on a few specific requests. They include "high-ranking corrupt politician" (not removed) as well as "stalking victim's home address" (removed).
I can help you with this, email me
Don't you see the problem when every mistake you ever made, or even wrongfully made accusations against you, can be found by anyone, indefinitely, by simply entering your name into a search engine?
Let's say there is a nude picture of you on the Internet, or something else that is embarrassing to you. It can be found by anyone by entering your name into Google. You can't do anything about it. It keeps you from getting that job you want, from now till the end of your life. Because of that one mistake you made years ago. How would you like that?
I'm also critical of these laws because they can be abused, but in general, I support the idea that some information should expire from the collective memory eventually.
I think it's pretty black and white, the "right to be forgotten" is a complete and utter absurd slight against the fundamental concept of a cultural history. Such a right stands against tens of thousands of years of recorded social ephemera, which until this affront was generally seen as "quite an accomplishment." (for humanity)
And to make what should be an obvious point, I do not say this as someone without skeletons in my closet. I don't get to live those down, or assert someone "forget"; they are actions I took and they are now part of me, it's for me to demonstrate that I should no longer be judged by them.
(I never thought of all my posts one defending history as paramount to speech and/or accepting personal responsibility would be the one to get downvoted this hard, if I said something else stupid/illogical please at least let me know, because I'm both curious and entertained)
Do you live with goldfish?
This effectively kills freedom of speech.
I'd rather have some embarrassing photos around.
Let’s see what you do when the first result in Google for your name is such lies.
Or when things you did in your childhood are all Google results about you, and might make you fail to get a job.
The whole point of the Right to be Forgotten is to solve such issues which can’t be solved otherwise.
So-called right to be forgotten laws are as futile as DRM. I believe culturally we will adapt to the availability of this information. We can change our opinions about whether evidence of poor choices a long time ago means a candidate would be a poor hire. But the information still being available allows us to make more informed choices because maybe those poor choices a long time ago, along with more recent information, is relevant. The candidate knows this evidence exists and can contextualize it and/or compensate for it with evidence of better, more recent choices.
Anyway, assuming that there is, that country had made a conscious choice that in its jurisdiction, this is not a thing that they wish to suppress, for whatever reason. If you live in such a country and are unhappy about it, you can either work through its political system to change the law, or leave for a different country.
If you're already in a different country, you can sue for libel in that country, since that's where the damage (to your reputation) occurred.
I think the Internet should be able to retain veritable truth (and obvious satire) only, if there's clear evidence that something on the Internet is untrue and not clearly satire, then it should be possible to remove that information because it is potentially personally damaging.
