> It was never about allowing individuals to censor information about themselves just because they don't want it to be shared.
Maybe that wasn't the intent but that is the net effect because the burden of proof is not on the individual to show that the information should be removed but rather on the search engine to show that it should not be. As a matter of simple economics, Google has essentially no choice but to comply with all RTBF requests whether or not they have merit, just it has to comply with all DMCA takedown requests whether or not they have merit. Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits.
> Is there actually any evidence that it's easily abused, or is that just an assumption?
It's a prediction.
> it's impossible to reliably achieve fair outcomes after initially encountering negative information
Why? If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories?
> We're in a shades-of-grey area here
Yes, of course, that's the whole point. What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty? (Should Michael Slager have a right to force the internet to forget that he actually shot Walter Scott in the back, despite the fact that the jury did not convict him?) What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming? Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do. Why? Because it's cheaper and less risky for Google to simply comply with all takedown request than to actually try to adjudicate each request on its merits.
Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits.
Apparently you're wrong on that one, but even if you weren't, I'm not sure I would have a problem with this. Google has a highly visible and influential system, but I don't see why it should be exempt from the same data protection and privacy rules that everyone else has to follow just because it is inconvenient or expensive to comply with them. Remember, the original RTBF ruling from the CJEU was based on existing general principles of fair data processing under EU law, not some special anti-Google legislation.
If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories?
There are laws potentially requiring news outlets to update misleading stories, issue corrections, remove material infringing others' intellectual property rights, etc. This would also be covered by much the same data protection rules, as well as legislation regarding defamation, official secrets, copyright, and so on.
What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty?
What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming?
We have a legal process to make decisions on these difficult issues, by holding a trial, and a great deal of thinking by a great many smart people has gone into making that system the way it is. If the verdict reached through such a trial is flawed, there are well established legal mechanisms for appealing it or even correcting it later if new evidence proves it was wrong. Obviously the system isn't perfect, nor can it ever be in the absence of telepathy or something. But Google and the Internet aren't even close to big and important enough to overturn an entire legal system.
And yes, sometimes that legal system results in surprising verdicts. Maybe that's because, unlike Mike from down the road who made a five minute post on his personal blog, the courts actually considered all of the available evidence and followed an impartial process through which an official determination of someone's guilt or lack of guilt was made. But that verdict will be regarded as the final decision for any other purpose, including say a defamation lawsuit also brought in a real court. So an argument that someone should be allowed to just say whatever they want and use a system like Google to magnify their influence even though a court has already ruled the opposite isn't going to be very convincing to me (or just about anyone else) I'm afraid.
Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do.
Every time you deal with someone else's personal data, you have a legal (and, I would argue, moral) responsibility to do so fairly. If you don't, the law may punish you. I just don't see why the RTBF is different to any other aspect of the relevant law in this respect.
> they actually reject the majority of requests to remove search results under RTBF
Slightly over half. But we really have no way of knowing how many of these requests are really rejected on merit and how many are rejected because of some technicality (e.g. some problem with the submitted proof of identity)
> I don't see why it should be exempt from the same data protection and privacy rules that everyone else has to follow
It should not. I'm using "Google" here as a proxy for any web service that falls under RTBF.
> We have a legal process to make decisions on these difficult issues
Yes, of course, but this isn't about that. This is about controlling information. You brought up stealing a chocolate bar as an example of something that should be forgotten, and I countered with rape as an example of something that perhaps should not. The problem is: who gets to decide where the line between petty theft and rape gets drawn with respect to the RTBF?
The problem is: who gets to decide where the line between petty theft and rape gets drawn with respect to the RTBF?
Ultimately, the legislature when it comes to setting general principles and then the courts when it comes to interpreting those principles in specific cases, just like any other decision like this.
What I meant was: who decides in individual cases. Obviously neither the legislature nor the courts are going to do that. Companies are going to do it, and they are going to do it in a way that minimizes their cost and legal exposure. And that means, under the current law, if they are going to honor their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, they are going to err on the side of censorship. (Note that Google is in a unique position of not actually being beholden to their shareholders. Because of the way the company is structured, Larry and Sergey have absolute control, just as Zuck has absolute control over FB. But those are extremely rare situations for public companies. In any case, I do not want a world where freedom of information depends on the benevolence of a handful of oligarchs.)
Maybe that wasn't the intent but that is the net effect because the burden of proof is not on the individual to show that the information should be removed but rather on the search engine to show that it should not be. As a matter of simple economics, Google has essentially no choice but to comply with all RTBF requests whether or not they have merit, just it has to comply with all DMCA takedown requests whether or not they have merit. Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits.
> Is there actually any evidence that it's easily abused, or is that just an assumption?
It's a prediction.
> it's impossible to reliably achieve fair outcomes after initially encountering negative information
Why? If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories?
> We're in a shades-of-grey area here
Yes, of course, that's the whole point. What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty? (Should Michael Slager have a right to force the internet to forget that he actually shot Walter Scott in the back, despite the fact that the jury did not convict him?) What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming? Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do. Why? Because it's cheaper and less risky for Google to simply comply with all takedown request than to actually try to adjudicate each request on its merits.