Categories
Notes

Using my Right to be Forgotten

Header image: KF in Dalle-E

The 2016 RTBF policy brief from @article19org is an excellent overview
(Mar 29, 2016) Policy Brief: The Right to be Forgotten
https://article19.org/resources/policy-brief-the-right-to-be-forgotten/…

Another overview can be found here:
(Oct 5, 2023) The EU’s right to be forgotten is migrating to other countries
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/the-eus-right-to-be-forgotten-is-migrating-to-other-countries.php

╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬


Considering @article19org’s Requirement 1: The courts or independent adjudicatory bodies should decide whether “right to be forgotten” requests should be granted, a thread….

I wanted to see what the “right to be forgotten” process entailed with Google so, in 2023, I decided to exercise this right. I first checked out Google’s Right to be Forgotten Overview. https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224… 2/

Next, I intentionally chose a relatively innocuous (from 20 years ago!) result that was returned under a search for my name… https://theguardian.com/sport/2003/mar/30/sixnations2003.sixnations7… 3/

…and filled out the Personal Data Removal Request Form. https://reportcontent.google.com/forms/RTBF 4/

I provided (/invented) my reason for removal… 5/

…and my request was immediately entered into the automated queue. 6/

This was immediately followed by a request to explain my connection to the country where the European data protection law applies (in my case, Ireland) 7/

I explained my connection and, two days later, my request was granted.

I wondered who “we” was and what exactly was meant by “had a look” /8

I decided to push a little to see if I could have the delisting applied to Canada, where I am currently resident (mostly to see what justification for refusal would be provided) /9

Two days later, I learn that “they” have again “had a look” and got re-confirmation that the delisting was applied to Ireland and other European versions of Google search /10

Not expecting success, of course, I decided to repeat my request, hoping that “they” might provide their reasoning for refusing /11

When there was no reply, I pushed again… /12

..and received a reply. /13

(Sept 2019) ‘Right to be forgotten’ on Google only applies in EU, court rules https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/24/victory-for-google-in-landmark-right-to-be-forgotten-case


I agree with @article19org that courts/ independent adjudicatory bodies should decide whether RTBF requests should be granted but I’m not sold on their idea that “existing remedies” rather than some form of the RTBF are sufficient to deal with this increasingly complex issue /15

In addition, “unpublishing” is becoming much more prevalent in the US but it is being done in an ad hoc manner which raises many serious questions https://cjr.org/special_report/right-to-be-forgotten.php#… 16/16

This note is, presumably, with reference to the delisted result above.

(Sept 29, 2023) Federal Court of Appeal ruling opens door for Canadians to have ‘right to be forgotten’ on Google
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-federal-court-of-appeal-opens-door-to-the-right-to-be-forgotten-in-a/