The July 2022 issue of IEEE Spectrum is here!

Close bar

Google Explains How It Forgets

Google tells of progress and problems in letter to European regulators

2 min read
A magnifying glass in front of the Google logo.
Photo: Michael Gottschalk/Getty Images

Google can forget, but unlike the rest of us, the process is not automatic.

Yesterday Google told a European government data protection working party how it handles requests for search result link removals. The removals began in June after a May European court ruling (see our coverage) upholding a Spanish man's right to be forgotten.

The working group had earlier sent Google a questionnaire on the practicalities of the removals and met with Google and two other unnamed U.S. search engines. Google's reply revealed that it is handling the requests on a case-by-case basis, with decisions resting on recently-hired staff.  Companies that help individuals request link removals have begun receiving rejections, The New York Times reported.

The cover letter said that the company's "approach will not be static" and that it expects to be in dialogue with data protection authorities. It spelled out the criteria by which staff decide whether to honor an individual's link removal request. These hew close to those set out in the May court ruling.

The company noted some complications it has encountered, such as the fact that different EU countries have different policies on publishing full names in court documents. As anyone who has used Google News has discovered, the company also finds it difficult to establish what sort of online media count as "reputable" news organizations.

Googled also laid out its policy of alerting users that name-containing searches may have had results modified by legal action:

"The notification is intended to alert users to the possibility that their results for this kind of query may have been affected by a removal, but not to publicly reveal which queries were actually affected."

Perhaps the most illuminating passage  was the admission that there is not yet a good way to convert the court's order into a computer algorithm for filtering the public interest from the private:

"We are not automating decisions about these removals. We have to weigh each request individually on its merits, and that is done by people. We have many people working full time on the process, and ensuring enough resources are available for the processing of requests required a significant hiring effort."

Some numbers help put that effort in perspective: the company received about 91,000 requests in the first 7 weeks the relevant form was available and is still working on the backlog. So far, it has approved 53 percent of requests, rejected 32 percent with an explanation of the reason why, and requested further information in 15 percent of the cases. It has also reversed some of its decisions already, in some high-profile cases involving the newspaper The Guardian. A UK House of Lords subcommittee recently called the court's criteria "vague, ambiguous and unhelpful," the BBC reported.

The Conversation (0)

How the FCC Settles Radio-Spectrum Turf Wars

Remember the 5G-airport controversy? Here’s how such disputes play out

11 min read
This photo shows a man in the basket of a cherry picker working on an antenna as an airliner passes overhead.

The airline and cellular-phone industries have been at loggerheads over the possibility that 5G transmissions from antennas such as this one, located at Los Angeles International Airport, could interfere with the radar altimeters used in aircraft.

Patrick T. Fallon/AFP/Getty Images

You’ve no doubt seen the scary headlines: Will 5G Cause Planes to Crash? They appeared late last year, after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration warned that new 5G services from AT&T and Verizon might interfere with the radar altimeters that airplane pilots rely on to land safely. Not true, said AT&T and Verizon, with the backing of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which had authorized 5G. The altimeters are safe, they maintained. Air travelers didn’t know what to believe.

Another recent FCC decision had also created a controversy about public safety: okaying Wi-Fi devices in a 6-gigahertz frequency band long used by point-to-point microwave systems to carry safety-critical data. The microwave operators predicted that the Wi-Fi devices would disrupt their systems; the Wi-Fi interests insisted they would not. (As an attorney, I represented a microwave-industry group in the ensuing legal dispute.)

Keep Reading ↓Show less