Google's removal of search results in Europe is drawing accusations of
press censorship, as stories from some of the continent's most prominent
news outlets begin vanishing. The U.S. internet giant said Thursday it
is getting 1,000 requests a day to scrub results.
The U.S. firm must comply with a May ruling from the European Union's
top court that enables citizens to ask for the removal of embarrassing
personal information that pops up on a search of their names. Among
links to vanish were stories on a soccer referee who resigned after a
scandal in 2010, French office workers making post-it art, a couple
having sex on a train and a lawyer facing a fraud trial.
At least
three British media outlets, including the Guardian newspaper and public
broadcaster BBC, said Google notified them search results in Europe
would not contain some links to their publications.
"It is the equivalent of going into libraries and burning books you don't like," Daily Mail Online publisher Martin Clarke said.
BBC
Economics Editor Robert Peston said the removal of his 2007 blog post,
which was critical of Merrill Lynch's then-CEO Stan O'Neal, means "to
all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public
record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for
most people."
The company is only starting to implement the ruling
on the "right to be forgotten" and so far the numbers are small: The
Guardian cited six articles, the BBC said one critical blog entry was
removed, while the Mail Online saw four articles hit. Several German
media contacted Thursday said they had not yet received notifications
from Google.
"It's not yet really clear what the magnitude of this is," cautioned
Joel Reidenberg of Fordham University, currently a visiting professor at
Princeton University. "Google may be choosing to go overboard to
essentially create a debate about censorship."
The company said it
had received more than 70,000 removal requests by the end of June. Each
application on average seeks the removal of almost four links, meaning
its experts have to individually evaluate more than a quarter-million
pages.
Google does not explain the decision to remove a link or
say who requested it. The company is not disclosing how many appear to
fall into areas the court specified as potentially objectionable:
results that are "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant."
The
purge of search results applies to Google's local search pages covering
the EU's 28 member nations and four other European countries,
encompassing more than 500 million people. The company has a 90 percent
market share for searches in Europe. Those who switch to the firm's
American domain, Google.com, will find unaltered search results.
The Mountain View, California, company finds itself in an
uncomfortable position. It has no choice but to comply with the ruling
by the EU top court, which cannot be appealed, but many decisions to
remove search results are likely to draw criticism.
"This is a new
and evolving process for us," Google spokesman Al Verney said Thursday.
"We'll continue to listen to feedback and will also work with data
protection authorities and others as we comply with the ruling."
Princeton's
Reidenberg said while the court gave Google little practical guidance
on how to implement its decision, it effectively gave the search engine a
responsibility similar to those traditional publishers always had —
judging whether an information is in the public interest, whether it
will withstand legal challenges and whether an individual complaint
against it is warranted.
"Google algorithms are already making value judgments all the time as to which information is relevant," he added.
Proponents of the court decision say it gives individuals the
possibility to restore their reputation by deleting references to old
debts, past arrests and other unflattering episodes. They also note 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.
"The ruling has created a stopwatch on free
expression — our journalism can be found only until someone asks for it
to be hidden," author James Ball wrote on the Guardian's website.
(AP)