We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
AFTER THE EU Court of Justice’s (ECJ) ruling earlier this week, Google’s Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt has said the European court struck the wrong balance when it made its decision on personal privacy.
Responding to a question asked at the company’s annual shareholder meeting, Schmidt said the case reflects a “collision between a right to be forgotten and a right to know,” and that the company believed “the balance that was struck [by the ECJ] was wrong.”
He said that since Google isn’t a media company, it is not protected under European data protection law and could have serious implications for the company.
Google’s Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond, told investors that it was still analysing the decision and the impact it could have for the search engine, but described it as “disappointing,” and said it “went too far.”
The ruling by the ECJ will force Google to remove links to content about a person, under certain conditions, if they submit an application to have it removed. The company would then have to weigh up whether that information is in the public interest and whether it should stay.
Google currently dominates the search engine space in Europe, claiming more than 90 per cent of search and vastly outperforming rivals like Bing and Yahoo.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
To rephrase – from Google’s own corporate perspective – the ECJ struck the wrong balance. Personally I feel that from the perspective of every other citizen on earth. The ECJ got it spot on.
Patrick picture the following scenario – in 2000 man is convicted or rape. Released in 2006, in. 2010 applies to data commissioner to be ‘forgotten’ by Google ….. 2014 announces candidacy for Local Elections……. People google him nothing turns up …..
Except Harry, it states they can weigh up if its in public interest and stay.
I disagree Patrick, I also think it went too far. As with all these things the devil is in the detail. We will see how it’s implemented.
If its in the public interest to stay, then it will Harry. Say for example someone put up a video of their teenage friend doing a neknomination. Five years later a prospective employer googles him and finds this, so he doesn’t get the job. Its not in the public interest to stay on the net, and the guy himself didn’t put it up, and he technically didn’t do anything illegal, so why shouldn’t he request for it to be removed if it has a detrimental effect on his life? Google already have too much of our lives on their database.
Yes but before he is a candidate in an election it is not in the publics interest as the state in releasing the person ha deemed them no longer a threat so therefore it will be removed.
Harry by that definition we should wipe their criminal records too becuase they paid their debt to society right? Thats all in the past now sure.
Google is primarily an advertising company. They make the majority of their wealth from harvesting personal information and targeting you with ads. Their pay per click structure, keyword valuing and dominance in the search space make them so. They also work tirelessly to promote themselves as everything but that. I have way more faith in futurists like Elon Musk than this ads company.
Have you ever tried to find out if someone has a criminal record? It is extremely difficult … The person must provide you with details of it or agree to vetting procedures which you yourself can’t do on them without their permission. Your next door neighbour or housemate could be a serial killer but you have no right to know their criminal record. So Eoin it may Aswell be wiped in relation to informing the public.
Harry, how do you think the history of politicians were identified before google?
People should have a right to not have their employment prospects damaged by opinions expressed in the past and that they may not even hold any more.
I was a rabid communist when I was 17 and knew nothing about the world. I am just lucky that google haven’t indexed the fidonet or my name would be associated with all kinds of stupidity.
Jumbo, that was done due to reporting in the print media. You have my full name try to discover what if any criminal record I have. You have 24 hours no googling me.
Ronan, Google has Ray Kurzweil. He is the king of futurists.
No need to worry too much. This ruling is completely unworkable and will be reversed.
Christ I wish I hadn’t gotten involved with posting stuff on the web. Are my posts on this site permanent??? Facebook and twitter are :(
Window dressing Jimbo, how long have I been hearing about self driving cars? Until Google put their vast wealth to work on things that will really drive mankind forward, then they will always be an Ads company with good marketing. If Nicola Tesla could be on the cusp of transatlantic wireless energy transmission 100 years ago, then that should be easy for Google now with their vast wealth and resources.
Except he cannot apply to be forgotten from the Sex Offenders Register!
Geez artificial intelligence, applications for quantum computing and a cure for aging not good enough for you?
Maybe you should get off you arse and contribute to solving the problems of humanity before complaining about the contribution of others.
If thats directed at me Jimbo, thats a bit aggressive. Google tout themselves and always court media attention that suggests they are primarily a technology company, but in reality they make their money form gathering information about each of us and then targeting us with advertising. They are very good at masking that through marketing. Im sorry if that offends you, but its fact.
Harry put on your shirt.
Nicola Tesla is far from a sex offender…..his engine may explode unexplainably but that does not consider him for such. my dare you.
Seeing as he is in the mood for telling us what we have the right to know maybe he could tell us why google feels like it should pay virtually no taxes considering it huge income? You won’t find a Page written by Google on that. What’s a dirty Sanchez Mr Schmidt? Dutch sandwich? Double Irish?
Slightly off point but if Google feels like it’s share price would be hurt it’s worried itself not you or what you should know.
They would say that wouldn’t they, there not used to be held to account
Back to the drawing board for Google, but we should also ask if the “right to be forgotten” exists on State databases… PULSE – for example, a conviction may be removed from a persons record after an appropriate period of time, but the citizen who finds themselves “set up” by Gardaí has to go through hoops to have unproven allegations that were made against them removed from their record.
Great opportunity for politicians and people in the public eye to airbrush out of search engine visibility their past misdemeanors over their tax affairs, dodgy directorships, political affiliations, statements and legal problems.
If it’s not on Google, it never happened.
It’s a utterly daft ruling if you look at it.
have your say