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.
Subscribe to 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In May, the ECJ ruled that search engines should delete outdated and irrelevant data on request.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".
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".
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
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.
-
Google ruled a monopoly over ad tech dominance
Speed Read Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed the ruling as a 'landmark victory in the ongoing fight to stop Google from monopolizing the digital public square'
-
Is 'AI slop' breaking the internet?
In The Spotlight 'Low-quality, inauthentic, or inaccurate' content is taking over social media and distorting search engine results
-
'Mind-boggling': how big a breakthrough is Google's latest quantum computing success?
Today's Big Question Questions remain over when and how quantum computing can have real-world applications
-
DOJ seeks breakup of Google, Chrome
Speed Read The Justice Department aims to force Google to sell off Chrome and make other changes to rectify its illegal search monopoly
-
Google Maps gets an AI upgrade to compete with Apple
Under the Radar The Google-owned Waze, a navigation app, will be getting similar upgrades
-
Is ChatGPT's new search engine OpenAI's Google 'killer'?
Talking Point There's a new AI-backed search engine in town. But can it stand up to Google's decades-long hold on internet searches?