Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur.
Contact us now +1128 5255 8454
[email protected]

Instagram Feed

Right to Be Forgotten Tag

There's been plenty of buzz lately about Europe's "Right to Be Forgotten," where citizens can have old or irrelevant information dropped from search results. The idea has been copied by Canada and proposed in a much spookier form in Russia. And even in Europe there's an ongoing battle about whether their regulations can be imposed worldwide. I think it's a safe bet that Americans don't want European laws governing our technology. But what if the United States had its own Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF)? That's the proposal that's been put before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last week. It comes from the non-profit group Consumer Watchdog and contains a surprisingly strong argument. The Precedent

Not long ago I wrote about how few Right to Be Forgotten requests are actually approved. In EU, people can file RTBF requests to make information about them disappear from search results if it is inaccurate, outdated or irrelevant. But it turned out that only 2 out of 3 of those requests were denied on average. Is that rate too high? It turns out the answer is no, according to Europe's own RTBF regulators. Originally, the 67 percent denial rate was unearthed by a watchdog group. The message was that Google wasn't really going its job and that people's privacy still wasn't being protected. That sparked outrage

Ever since the European Union created its "Right to Be Forgotten" rule, nations around the world have watched to see if it works. Many wonder whether they should have a similar rule of their own. It looks like Russia has decided the answer is yes---but their version is a lot scarier than Europe's. The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) is a simple concept that says not everything should stay on the internet forever. If someone publishes lies about you online, for example, there should be a way to have them taken down. The easiest way is to simply block them at the search engine level. Search engines like Google

For those of you keeping count, it's now been 13 months since Europe's "Right To Be Forgotten" went into effect. It's also been 13 months since the EU decided Google isn't doing enough to comply, and Google has continuously resisted pressure to do more. Only now, however, has the search engine been given a firm ultimatum---and a looming deadline. The Tussle The skirmish is over how global the RTBF is. Currently, if you believe a web page contains inaccurate, outdated or irrelevant information about you, you can request that Google stop showing it in the search results. That includes searches on local versions of Google serving the EU countries,

It's been nearly a year since the EU passed its "Right to Be Forgotten" law (RTBF). Under the law Google established an application process for Europeans to get information about them expunged from searches, if it met certain criterion. So how have those requests been going? Well, decide for yourself: Google has denied 70 percent of them. The figure comes from an advocacy site run by a European reputation management company. Google has received more than a quarter of a million RTBF requests, and by the company's count over two thirds of them have been rejected. That's not necessarily a bad thing though. The majority of RTBF claims (58 percent) are "invasion

Google has drawn a line in the sand with the EU, at least for the time being. Last year European Union courts established a "right to be forgotten," effectively bolstering their citizens' privacy rights. Under that policy, citizens and residents of 32 European countries can request to have inaccurate or inappropriate information about them removed from search results. Google created a system for requesting removals and it seemed to be working fine. But now European regulators want to go a step further---a step all the way across the pond. Google has been removing pages only from results for the affected countries (for example, or Regulators have