A time when my name was gouglara (no comment), one of the first results was a blog post that blamed me for a strange "turn-over" in my animal reports.
Although I had responded to the author himself and, say, the misunderstanding had been solved, the linkage remained for years hanging high on my search for it Google. Fortunately today it's kind of lost (I refuse to look for it) behind other results about reporting, however I could ask the engine search to remove it as defamatory, a request that would likely be granted.
Since last May, when the decision of the European court entered into force according to which each of us, under certain conditions, has the right to demand that search engines remove specific results, more than half a million Europeans flooded Google with related requests. In the first month of the decision alone, more than 70.000 users rushed to ask Google to delete specific links that concerned them, judging that the information contained in them "is inappropriate, has ceased to be valid or is excessive". Now, the company has made available to users a relevant online form, which anyone can fill out in order to submit a link removal request.
According to information, hundreds are the Greeks who have also invoked the "right to oblivion". Last example, the actress Argyris Angelos, typing the name of which on Google was automatically completing the word "gay". The actor asked the company to delete the specific results by completing the relevant form, while appealing against it and court (lost the case after it was judged that the issue had already been resolved through the online process).
It is worth noting that ever since, searching for information through Google for Mr. Angelou, the footnote appears that "some results may have been removed based on the new European data protection law." There is already pressure on the company not to display it information in the "entries" in which links have been removed based on the decision of the European Court of Justice. It is clarified, however, that search engines have an obligation to delete only the relevant results, not their source. In other words, the defamatory texts are still online, they just don't come up with a simple search. This was also the first line Google's defense, that is, it is not itself responsible for the personal data that appears on its pages.
Although evolution has been enthusiastically welcomed by a large part of the population who saw a victory of the movement in favor of the protection of personal data on the Internet, there have been doubts as to whether such intervention is ultimately in our interest. "Is that how we" retouch "the past to such an extent that we will rewrite history?", Is the question that arises.
Reactions
In any case, the debate is alive and well, with advocates of the right to be forgotten on the one hand and those of the right to be forgotten on the other. information and in expression on the other hand. Reactions are already being recorded from journalists who no longer find their articles in searches, with the most well-known case being the financial editors of the BBC, who saw their earlier article about the former chairman of the investment company Merrill Lynch, Stan O'Neill, disappear.
Source: kathimerini.gr
