42

Microsoft still trying to figure out its 'right to be forgotten' setup for Bing

bing

Microsoft is in the middle of trying to comply with a recent law, passed in May by the European Union Court of Justice, that requires all search engines that operate in the EU to hide content if a person requests their name not show up in their search results. The effort is better known as the "right to be forgotten".

Microsoft posted word this week about its status for complying with the law, in regards to its Bing search service. It stated:

We're currently working on a special process for residents of the European Union to request blocks of specific privacy-related search results on Bing in response to searches on their names. Given the many questions that have been raised about how the recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union should be implemented, developing an appropriate system is taking us some time. We'll be providing additional information about making requests soon.

Google has already put a system in place where people can request to have their names hidden from its search results. It's currently unknown how long the EU will wait for Microsoft to comply with the new law.

Source: Bing; Via: Neowin

2
loading...
0
loading...
25
loading...
0
loading...

Reader comments

Microsoft still trying to figure out its 'right to be forgotten' setup for Bing

42 Comments

Sometimes I think you guys write your articles with your phones, because how do you get compiling from complying?

Probably spell check correcting "compling." (You guys at least do that, right? Work with me here...)

I don't understand why all articles aren't written in Word. It fixes most grammar and spelling mistakes. Such a simple task that would go a long way.

You didn't test "compling" in Word, did you....

Edit: And I stand corrected. Word's autocorrect would suggest "complying" when checking the sentence. Checking the word in isolation yields "compiling" as the top suggestion.

One thing I don't understand is that my name is Robert Burke. A very common name. So how do they block me and not all the others? How does any search service know which stuff belongs to me and not the Robert Burke in California?
Do I have to sit down and tell them which FB account, and Google+ account, and Twitter account, etc is mine? And give them addresses for all the pictures I find of myself that I want blocked?
Sometimes I just feel the EU is full of shit.

Yes, that's exactly what you have to do. You have to say specifically what you want removed and you have to make proof of your identity and to justify why you want it removed. It's not just "remove this!" and Google blindly goes ahead and obeys.

You can't have a general block on searching for you. You have the right to ask "please do not display links to 'this' article about me in searches for Robert Burke because it's irrelevant/outdated/whatever." The EU is defending your right (if you're an EU citizen) to a bit of privacy of your past. But if you're a crooked politician or a dodgy builder, for example, your request can be refused.

Didn't you answer your own question?
BTW, apart from your given info, there is something called "IP address". It's no big deal for them to recognize you based on your exact location and the personal information related with your IP address. Not just that, they know more about you than you think they know.

... and if years later I move out of the EU do I have to tell Google that I've moved and to start showing the links again? (oh .. wait, Google will already know that I moved before I actually move).

What if I Google the link while on vacation to the Mexico, will the links show up from there, or are they blocked no matter who or where the search is initiated?

Sounds like a way the EU can keep applying fines to MS and Google whenever they want to, <This link has not been removed, you now have to pay a 1.5 million Euro fine> etc...

Just a small correction: the European Courts DON'T pass laws. They just apply laws already in existance. The "right to be forgotten" was just the application of European law principles regarding privacy, not a new specific law created for the internet.

What? How is this any different from someone requesting that their information be withheld from a telephone directory? A desire for a greater degree of privacy by some is nothing new.

I think the real difference is the era we are living in. Personally I think although privacy is important non technical judges are not the best people to deliberate over such a far reaching decision and one that will more than likely be out paced technology wise in the next couple of years.

Even people that don't use the internet are on the internet. Friends fotos, work related, phone lists, surveillance cameras, etc, etc, etc. Dumbest comment I've read today.

Your argument is terrible. The internet is almost a necessity in this day and age. Even if someone chooses to stay offline, that won't keep them out of friends' Facebook photos, data from employers, news sites, directories, etc. And even if the benefits outweigh the costs, that doesn't mean action shouldn't be taken to protect the privacy of those who want it. Just because privacy on the internet is relatively weak right now doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. Hardly draconian censorship.

I wonder what Dogpile, infobot, blekko, Wow, WebCrawler, MyWebSearch, Infospace, DuckDuckGo, Dogpile, Ask, and others are doing to comply?

Yes, the EU is full of crap. Many countries are considering pulling out. On the other hand, the U.S. has its fair share of problems and BS, right?

This whole "right to be forgotten" is akin to marching into a library and demanding they pulp books. It's bad for everyone; it's nothing more than internet censorship.

Actually, the original material will remain. It is more like asking the library to remove your name from their index, but the book about you will still be on the shelf.