Google 'Right to Be Forgotten' Case Lost, Must Delist Man's Crime


With a United Kingdom 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.

Mr Justice Warby said the businessmen, who can not be named for legal reasons, complained of results returned by Google Search that feature links to third-party reports about their convictions. "However, it's not entirely clear what criteria will be applied to decide if Google acted correctly or incorrectly in making its decision".

"There is not a plausible suggestion. that there is a risk that this wrongdoing will be repeated by the claimant", Warby said, according to The Guardian.

Mr Justice Warby has made orders barring the men from being identified in media reports about the litigation. "Delisting would not erase the information from the record altogether, but it would make it much harder to find".

Justice Warby noted in his rulings that he had ruled in favor of the one man because the judge believed that the individual involved had "shown remorse", but the judge did not accept the other petitioner's claim, because the latter had continued to "mislead the public".

"We are pleased that the Court recognized our efforts [to comply with the Right to Be Forgotten], and we will respect the judgments they have made in this case", a Google spokesman said about the new ruling, The Telegraph reported.

The Open Rights Group, which campaigns for internet freedoms, said the rulings set a "legal precedent".

The balance may depend, the ECJ ruled "on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life".

Google contested the two claims, which were heard in separate High Court trials in London.

Surveys show a majority of Americans support the "right to be forgotten", but observers have said it's unlikely that such legislation would pass here because of possible violations of the First Amendment.

At a high level, it refers to the right of people to either have certain adverse data about them blocked from being Internet accessible, or to have entries removed from search engine results on their names if the information in those entries is outdated or irrelevant.

Anybody can exercise their right to be forgotten via an online form.

The most affected website is Facebook, with 18,723 links removed. Some free speech advocates have argued that could infringe upon the U.S. Constitution.



Other news