Google’s ‘right to be forgotten’: What is it?
More than half a million requests for links to be removed from the search engine results have been made to Google since the ruling.
With a UK businessman the latest individual to win the “right to be forgotten” over a past crime, here is a Q&A on Google’s controversial search removals.
What is it?
The “right to be forgotten” is based on the premise that outdated information about people should be removed from the internet after a certain time, following a European court decision.
Google only deletes information that appears on its own results pages. It has no control over information on external websites.
When did it come into force?
In May 2014, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said links to irrelevant and outdated data should be erased from searches on request.
The ruling came about after a case brought against Google by Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez, who wanted two newspaper articles dating back to 1998 to be deleted from the search results page.
They contained an announcement for a real-estate auction after he got into debt.
Who will it affect?
In early 2016, Google said it would hide content removed through the ruling from all versions of its search engine if a European IP address was detected.
How do you ask for something to be removed?
Anybody can exercise their right to be forgotten via an online form. The California-based search engine will then make a decision by balancing the individual’s right to privacy with the public’s right to know.
What impact has it had?
Some 669,355 requests for links to be removed from the search engine results have been made to Google since the ruling.
These cover almost two-and-a-half million URLS, 49.3% of which were deleted.
The most affected website is Facebook, with 18,723 links removed.
How do people feel about it?
But the move has sparked concerns about news stories and other previously public information being hidden.
Immediately after the 2014 ruling, the founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales warned that Google must not be left to “censor history”, warning that would be “a very dangerous path to go down”.
Supporters point out that the court specified Google should not remove links to information when the public’s right to know about it outweighs an individual’s right to privacy – for example when a politician or public figure seeks to clean online records.
