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In May, the ECJ ruled that search engines should delete outdated and irrelevant data on request.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".
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
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
-
Artificial history
Opinion Google's AI tailored the past to fit modern mores, but only succeeded in erasing real historical crimes
By Theunis Bates Published
-
Is Google's new AI bot 'woke'?
Talking Points Gemini produced images of female popes and Black Vikings. Now the company has stepped back.
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
Why Google search results have 'gotten worse'
Under The Radar Search engines are 'flooded' with 'garbage' content, say experts
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
2023: the year of the AI boom
the explainer This year, generative artificial intelligence bypassed the metaverse and became the next big thing in tech
By Theara Coleman, The Week US Published
-
Is using Google's Enhanced Safe Browsing mode worth it?
Talking Point The mode has its positives and its drawbacks
By Justin Klawans Published
-
Google is pitching an AI journalism tool to major news outlets
Talking Point News executives find the technology called Genesis unsettling
By Theara Coleman Published
-
Forget junk mail. Junk content is the new nuisance, thanks to AI.
Speed Read AI-generative models are driving a surge in content on fake news sites
By Theara Coleman Published
-
Why hasn't Google enforced its policy to stop climate disinformation?
Talking Point Is Google's acceptance of climate misinformation intentional?
By Devika Rao Published