In May 2014 a controversial ruling was handed down by the European Court of Justice in relation to the information that was displayed by Google in its search results.
Related Articles
Need for Online Reputation Management
Reputation Management On line Guidelines and Suggestions to actually remove your name from Google - Easiest way to remove rip off report
The Future of Reputation Management Companies
Reputation Management LLC - How to Change an Opinion
The case involved a Spanish individual who had filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) regarding Google and a Spanish newspaper, La Vanguardi, that information about him on a Google search relating to the repossession of his property was old and no longer relevant. Notwithstanding that the information on the Google search was correct, the complainant believed that the information should no longer be available on a Google search.
One element of the complaint to the AEPD was rejected on the basis that the information available was published legally and was protected by the right to information. However, the complaint in relation to the individual's right to privacy was upheld and the AEPD ordered Google to remove approximately 100 links from all future searches in relation to the Spanish man's name.
The decision was appealed by Google and the matter ended up in the European Court of Justice, who handed down a ruling which now means that European Union citizens have the right to request information that is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive is removed from search listings and other non-media websites. This does not require the removal of the source of the information itself, simply the fact that the information is produced in a search result.
Following the handing down of this judgment Google had to develop an online request form to enable individuals to lodge complaints. Bing, another search engine, have also now followed suit.
Unsurprisingly, Google have been inundated with tens of thousands of removal requests and are now tasked with assessing the validity of individuals' complaints, with the search engine acting as judge and jury.
Immediately following the handing down of the Judgment, Google publically condemned the ruling and expressed its disappointment at the decision. It is therefore questionable how wise it was for Google to be given responsibility for moderating and assessing individuals' complaints, particularly as Google publicly disagreed with the legal basis upon which the complaints are made.
Some three months after the European Court of Justice decision, the reports are that apparently half of the removal requests have been approved. I presume these figures have been collated and published by Google itself. Hopefully, the figures ought to alleviate the concerns of some of the cynics, myself included, who do not believe that Google ought to be self-moderating the complaints it receives.
However on the other end of the spectrum, those advocating the freedom of expression and the right to freedom of information are unlikely to be particularly pleased to hear that half of the complaints made to Google are being upheld. Critics of the European Court of Justice's decision believe that the manipulation of Google search results is wholly inappropriate, and that distortion and censorship of the information that appears on the internet (and search results) should not be tolerated.
I do not agree with this standpoint. I find the position adopted by the critics of the European Court of Justice ruling hypocritical as it fails to acknowledge that all Google searches are a product of manipulation, usually by those that are technically savvy enough to understand how Google works. Ultimately, search results can be influenced to ensure that when an individual enters specific keywords into a search engine, particular websites are elevated to the page one search results. The websites displayed at the top of the search results may not be the most popular websites nor may they be the most relevant, they are simply highlighted as a result of the technical skills of the individual responsible for the website, who presumably knows a thing or two about search engine optimisation.
I have no doubt that the debate over the right to be forgotten versus the right to information will continue, but ultimately how will we know where it ends up? If you wanted to find out about where the debate is currently at, the logical thing would be to Google search the phrase "Google and the right to be forgotten", but is there not a possibility that Google themselves are manipulating the search results produced upon the issue itself? Doesn't Google have an interest in controlling what information individuals can read upon this subject?
Ultimately I think it was very brave of the European Court of Justice to hand down this ruling, although the fight was brought by an individual in Spain, it is the European Court of Justice who have taken on Google the Goliath, which in my views makes the European Court of Justice (the Court that is supposed to be at the helm of Europe) merely the "David" of this battle.
