What are people requesting Google remove under 'right to be forgotten'

[silicon_toad2000]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/11157003/What-people-are-asking-to-be-removed-from-Google-searches.html

UK:

*A media professional requested that Google remove 4 links to articles reporting on embarrassing content he posted to the Internet. They did not remove the pages from search results.

*An individual asked to have removed links to articles on the internet that reference his dismissal for sexual crimes committed on the job. Google did not remove the pages from search results.

*A doctor requested the company remove more than 50 links to newspaper articles about a botched procedure. Three pages that contained personal information about the doctor but did not mention the procedure have been removed from search results for his name. The rest of the links to reports on the incident remain in search results.

*A man asked that Google remove a link to a news summary of a local magistrate’s decisions that included the man’s guilty verdict. Under the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, this conviction has been spent. The pages have been removed from search results for his name.
Related Articles

*A public official asked the search company to remove a link to a student organisation’s petition demanding his removal. Google did not remove the page from search results.

*A request from a former clergyman to remove 2 links to articles covering an investigation of sexual abuse accusations while in his professional capacity. Google did not remove the pages from search results.

Italy

*A woman requested that Google remove a decades-old article about her husband’s murder, which included her name. The page was removed from search results for her name.

*Multiple requests from a single individual who asked them to remove 20 links to recent articles about his arrest for financial crimes committed in a professional capacity. Google did not remove the pages from search results.

*A request from a crime victim to remove 3 links that discuss the crime, which occurred decades ago. The pages have been removed from search results for her name.

*Request to remove a link to a page that had taken a self-published image and reposted it. The page has been removed from search results for her name.

Switzerland:

*A financial professional asked the search engine to remove more than 10 links to pages reporting on his arrest and conviction for financial crimes. They did not remove the pages from search results.

Germany:

*A victim of rape asked Google to remove a link to a newspaper article about the crime. The page has been removed from search results for the individual’s name.

*An individual requested that they remove close to 50 links to articles about an embarrassing private exchange that became public. The pages have been removed from search results for his name.

*An individual asked to remove a link to an article covering a contest in which he participated as a minor. The page has been removed from search results for his name.

[GhostShip]

All seems pretty tame stuff, in the case of sexual crimes etc these are never removed as they serve a public interest that trumps an individuals rights, in the case of victims of crime then it is right to remove such data, it seems the balance is one of  the scope of the crime or incident and whether this has a relevant public interest, you wouldn't want to hire a guy who stole from his last employer etc or hire a doctor whom has performed badly in a selected speciality of medicine, as regards the petty embarrassment factor it seems these will make up the bulk of legitimate removal requests.

There should be a legal penalty for trying to remove records of sex crimes, the public really does have a right to know such things for their own protection unless a judge has ordered otherwise.

I wonder how other search engines are dealing with this hot potato ?

[silicon_toad2000]

i don't think a lot of people understand that there are other search engines

[White Stripes]

i don't think a lot of people understand that there are other search engines

this... very much this... ...once on the web always on the web... even if google doesnt list it...

[silicon_toad2000]

even if google doesn't list it, i bet they still cache it and it will still show up for other search terms.

e.g. is joe blogs is charged for eating a hot dog in public and the complaint was made by mary busybody, joe blogs might be able to get some search results removed, but the search for mary busybody will still show them up

[Pri]

When you search for something Google tells you if a link has been removed from that page or not by DMCA request or by personal information request. So that would be a good indicator for someone to search the same term on another search engine. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of the removals.

Just adding on to what Toad said above about there being other engines.

[Plum]

But less hits on the web about something embarrassing or wrong is better than many. One may be too many, but the less the better. I mean, you might have a broken window, but would that be an excuse to leave the front door unlocked?

And yes, if you make too big of a deal of removing from one place, you may draw more attention to another. That is related to why more people don't sue for defamation than they do. If you make too big of a deal out of something, others will assume there is something to it (where there's smoke, there is fire). And sometimes things that are previously ignored may be called into scrutiny. As an example, a boy had the name of Adolph Hitler Campbell. The father asked a store to put his name on a birthday cake, and the store refused. So he took the store to court. Taking them to court made him a public figure, and when people from social services saw that his kids were named Adolph Hitler Campbell and Aryan Nations Campbell, they were taken from the family. So he gave the kids White supremacist names, big deal, right? But he made waves and drew attention to that fact, and their parenting was called into question. Had he not raised hell over the store refusing to decorate a cake, the names wouldn't have raised as many eyebrows.

[GhostShip]

It does seem unfortunate that the father had named the children after a criminal despot, albeit one who lost the plot in the end, I still dont see where social services come into the matter unless the children had suffered discrimination from others for the names, sounds like a case of double predjudice to me as any sensible human being would assume the children are not the actual folks or organisations they may be named after, if the names are so offensive why dont the politicos pass a law to say so, that seems where the problem lies, in the UK  I have heard of the registrar refusing to accept some of the many ludicrous names folks have presented so there is a system of checks and balances, it seems in that particular case someone couldnt be bothered to make the effort to save 2 children from the actions of a rather low powered father.