Robert Peston complains about the removal of one of his articles from Google searches. The complaint generally about this move – and it isn’t just Peston by any means – is that this is censorship, an attack on press freedom.
No, it isn’t. Google is not the only search engine out there even if it is the most popular. And even if search engines remove results it does not remove the article, nor does it have any effect on publication – it simply means that with the passage of time, it will be more difficult to find. It is still possible to find it even if it is more difficult, so it isn’t censorship. Oner can, after all, search the publication directly.
And, frankly, the right to be forgotten isn’t such a bad principle. After all, much like the CRB checks that mean inconsequential long expired convictions can follow us around ruining our lives, a search on the web can do likewise. So, a fresh start isn’t necessarily a bad idea.
And I repeat, just because you don’t show up on a Google search, it doesn’t mean that you have been censored or that your free expression has been stifled. It hasn’t..
You are of course quite correct, the articles removal from Google search makes no impact on the actual article, a lot of people seem to have ignored or misunderstood this fact, and it will still be searchable in Bing or any other search engine.
When this ruling came about I cogitated and ruminated because of my situation, there was an item came up on Google search for the contact directory company 192, it was a very out of date entry, but I felt having it removed from Google search was important, of course I knew it would not remove it form the actual page on which it was posted, but it just made it harder for people to find.
I applied and Google removed it, they also made it quite clear in the correspondence that this would not remove it from the web and if I wanted it removed from the page it’s self I would have to apply to the web master of the site separately Which I have not done, it was the only page when searching that came up linking me to my old life, now it’s gone from Google searches it does not ensure it will never be found but increases my chances of it not being found.
I think you are wrong and the politicians etc. are wrong too!
Google is NOT the internet, they aren’t the publisher they are just an indexer.
If something published on the internet is wrong then it is the publisher that should put it right. That applies to ‘nasty’ images, (how do we know they are nasty if it is illegal to look?) and libel. The idea of a ‘redacted’ index is stupid and dangerous beyond belief.
Should ‘expired’ convictions be ‘deleted’? Of course not, they are a matter of public record. What there ought to be is a public record and official statement that they are ‘expired’.
Hiding records is as stupid as the idea that job applications don’t have ages, names, ethnicity, past convictions, Facebook links etc. that might stop one from getting the job. It must make for a great working environment when every past-proved prejudice has been compulsorily bypassed by ‘equality’ shenanigans.
As for Google I’m more worried by the fact that their ‘links’ are no longer that but ‘calls’ back to Google including my search terms (check the address bar in your browser). That is like the librarian taking note of every card that you pull out of the index.
I never said Google was the Internet. As for expired convictions – once expired they are no longer in the public interest and the individual should have the absolute right to have them expunged. I’ve seen the damage they can do. People’s prejudices are not quashed by the word “expired”. This is not the same as having age and so forth removed from job applications (which is stupid, I agree). If someone has an old conviction for shoplifting as a teenager and is now a reformed character decades later, that conviction is no one else’s business.
I disagree. Google are producing information and being told that they can’t produce that information any longer. That’s censorship. Whether it’s an article or a link to it, it’s all information.
It all depends on how you interpret the owner of the information. If that information is not in the public interest and is causing harm to the individual, then yes, they should have the right to get it removed. The best way to do that is via the initial website of course, but failing that, getting it removed from searches is the next best thing. It isn’t censorship because censorship is the state dictating what we can see. An individual seeking removal of damaging information is perfectly reasonable.
You could post the link on your blog to make up for it if you really think it is being censored. That’s what others do when an article is actually being censored. They make another copy available.
Also the “right to be forgotten” applies only to europe, so if one were to search google via a US based proxy or VPN server “forgotten” results would be visible.
This is perfectly true. Hence the best method is to get the publisher to remove it if at all possible.