The Mountain View firm, that has clearly defined its universal position from its very beginning, with its international products such as Gmail, Gmaps and many others, has rejected the French data protection authority’s demand concerning the application of the right on all versions of its search engine.
Why such a paradox? What are the real issues behind the simple blog article published by Google yesterday ?
Google publicly rejected the CNIL’s order and has decided to fight against the authority’s demand made in June 2015. The regulator considers that the implementation of the ‘right to be forgotten’ should be expanded on all the versions of the search engine. Max Mosley, is actually the only person who obtained an international search deindexation by an amicable agreement with Google.
From the very beginning, Reputation VIP has analysed the nature of the requests thanks to its forget.me service that allows its users to manage their requests in a simple and effective manner. “In a very short space of time we noticed that the requests mainly concerned private data that should not remain online. In our article on the Right to be forgotten’s first birthday, published on 12th May, we enumerated that around 60% of the demands concern private issues” said Bertrand Girin, the Reputation VIP’s CEO. The Guardian recently confirmed this position in its article revealing information found in Google’s code sources. According to the newspaper “Data shows 95% of Google privacy requests are from citizens out to protect personal and private information – not criminals, politicians and public figures”.
Google doesn’t want other nations to be inspired by the right to be forgotten ?
According to Bertrand Girin, “The right to be forgotten is a judicial innovation that has inspired other countries, Europe is the source of the subject and Google is refusing to take it a step further. The international search engine doesn’t want other countries to set up this right, as it limits their desire to manage the world’s information”.
By respecting this measure, Google will risk to reinforce the preoccupations concerning the right to be forgotten, that are already setup in certain non-European countries.
The forget.me data has allowed Reputation VIP to notice a particular appetence from non-European countries. 23% of the visitors on the website come from the United States. “The enthusiasm around forget.me shows that the right to be forgotten subject has crossed all borders and the respect of private life concerns the entire world” analysed Bertrand Girin.
Japan, Canada, Israel and the United States are all thinking about the subject. For instance, in Japan, the Tokyo Tribunal, inspired by the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), ordered Google to remove results concerning a complainant. Israeli deputies have introduced a law for the right to be forgotten. In the United States, a group of consumer defence has recently requested to the Federal Trade Commission to investigate about the reasons why Google has refused the right to be forgotten in the country. John Simpson, the group director, stated that Google could easily offer the right to be forgotten to the Americans, as they are committed to respect their customers private live. Their reluctancy to offer the Americans the opportunity to make a request of deindexation could be “unfair and misleading”.