Lords say 'right to be forgotten' is unworkable
Parliamentary committee says that asking Google to police the web is unreasonable

Forcing search engines to censor the internet and take down personal information to respect people's "right to be forgotten" is unfair, ambiguous and unhelpful, a Parliamentary committee has said.
The Lords home affairs EU sub-committee said that the European Court of Justice's ruling on the issue was unreasonable and placed a heavy onus of responsibility on Google and other search engines.
It also concluded that it would be wrong to give private companies the job of deciding what should and should not appear online, and to allow people to have information removed because they do not "like" it.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
In May, the ECJ ruled that search engines should delete outdated and irrelevant data on request. The move sparked a "fierce debate about censorship of material and right to privacy," the BBC says, but so far Britain has not moved to address the ruling.
In the two months since the verdict, Google has received 70,000 requests from private individuals seeking to have their data taken down.
The court's finding was based on Article 12 of the EU's directive on the protection of personal data – a directive that came into force three years before Google was founded.
The committee said: "It is crystal clear that the neither the 1995 directive nor the [ECJ's] interpretation of it reflects the incredible advancement in technology that we see today, over 20 years since the directive was drafted".
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
The committee's chair, Baroness Prashar added: "We also believe that it is wrong in principle to leave search engines themselves the task of deciding whether to delete information or not, based on vague, ambiguous and unhelpful criteria.
"We think there is a very strong argument that, in the new regulation, search engines should not be classed as data controllers, and therefore not liable as 'owners' of the information they are linking to.
"We also do not believe that individuals should have a right to have links to accurate and lawfully available information about them removed, simply because they do not like what is said".
-
How might Bari Weiss change CBS News?
Talking Points Is the network trying to ‘appease’ the president?
-
‘A legacy news brand brings a visibility of its own’
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
8 of the best ‘cozy crime’ series of all time
The Week Recommends Murder mysteries don’t necessarily have to make us miserable, and these shows have perfected a feel-good crime formula
-
Is the UK government getting too close to Big Tech?
Today’s Big Question US-UK tech pact, supported by Nvidia and OpenAI, is part of Silicon Valley drive to ‘lock in’ American AI with US allies
-
Google: A monopoly past its prime?
Feature Google’s antitrust case ends with a slap on the wrist as courts struggle to keep up with the tech industry’s rapid changes
-
South Korea's divide over allowing Google Maps
Talking Points The country is one of few modern democracies where the app doesn't work
-
Google avoids the worst in antitrust ruling
Speed Read A federal judge rejected the government's request to break up Google
-
Is AI killing the internet?
Talking Point AI-powered browsers and search engines are threatening the death of the open web
-
Unreal: A quantum leap in AI video
Feature Google's new Veo 3 is making it harder to distinguish between real videos and AI-generated ones
-
Google's new AI Mode feature hints at the next era of search
In the Spotlight The search giant is going all in on AI, much to the chagrin of the rest of the web
-
Is Apple breaking up with Google?
Today's Big Question Google is the default search engine in the Safari browser. The emergence of artificial intelligence could change that.