Google must remove nine search results to news stories that contain irrelevant information about a criminal conviction, the U.K. data protection watchdog ruled, sparking concerns about broader implications for press freedoms.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has given the search giant 35 days to comply with the order, which targets links that appear in Google search results for the person’s name.
Google declined to comment.
However, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a lobbying group that counts Google as a member, blasted the U.K. decision.
“This latest ruling shows that we have an expanding ability to censor what is on the web,” said Chief Executive Ed Black. “The effort to selectively take down and hide information, which is in the public domain, is a dangerous precedent that can be used globally.”
Citizens in the European Union’s 28 member countries can request that search engines stop linking to results about themselves that are no longer relevant, or are inaccurate, inadequate or excessive.
Europe’s so-called right to be forgotten was established after a Spanish man complained in 2010 that Google searches for his name brought up a reference to a decade-old repossession of his home. The European Court of Justice agreed with the man in May 2014 and ordered Google to stop listing the search results.
In the U.K. case, Google had agreed to remove links to a website that contained old reports about a criminal act committed by a particular person. This led to press coverage about the removal, including details about the conviction. The person asked Google to remove these links too, but the company refused, arguing that the links were still relevant and in the public interest.
The ICO disagreed.
Deputy Commissioner David Smith said, “Google was right, in its original decision, to accept that search results relating to the complainant’s historic conviction were no longer relevant … It is wrong of them to now refuse to remove newer links that reveal the same details and have the same negative impact.”
He acknowledged the implications for press freedom.
“We understand that links being removed as a result of this court ruling is something that newspapers want to write about,” Smith said.
Writers’ association English PEN is worried.
“It’s a concern in terms of press freedom and freedom of expression more broadly,” said Director Jo Glanville. “This leads to all sorts of future problems. The question is to what extent Google is prepared to fight it further.”
Glanville believes the order does not strike a good balance between privacy and press freedom.
“The application of the right to be forgotten is somewhat cosmetic, because you will still be able to find the information if you are industrious about how you search for it,” she said. “And the commissioner has actually said in his ruling that he recognizes that this case relates to journalistic content, he doesn’t dispute that that might be newsworthy and in the public interest.”
The ICO told POLITICO this ruling applies to Google because the complainant named the company specifically.
“The law applies to all search engines so if the complainant made the request of other search engines they would need to comply too,” an ICO spokesperson said. “It’s not a blanket ruling on search engines anywhere on the web.”
The ICO order follows a refusal from Google last month to a demand from the French data protection authority that Google remove links from google.com search results as well as its European sub-domains in “right to be forgotten” requests.
At the time, Peter Fleischer, Google’s Global Privacy Counsel, said: “We believe this order is disproportionate and unnecessary, given that the overwhelming majority of French Internet users — currently around 97 percent — access a European version of Google’s search engine like google.fr, rather than google.com or any other version of Google.”