I'm a journalist looking for a way to identify results removed under EU law. I'd like a big set of pages to search/analyse.
I'm struggling to get my head around how to do this. If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears!
1–10 of 42 posts
I'm a journalist looking for a way to identify results removed under EU law. I'd like a big set of pages to search/analyse.
I'm struggling to get my head around how to do this. If anyone has ideas, I'm all ears!
Maybe don't be such a slimy shithead?
> Can you provide more detailed statistics about the nature of these requests and removals?
> We have provided statistics about the scale of our delisting process—updated daily—since October 2014 in this Transparency Report and have added anonymised examples of delisting decisions to provide color. Additional data on common material factors is available for download here. We continue to explore ways to provide more transparency into delisting decisions in an operationally efficient manner and with due regard to the sensitive and private nature of the requests.
How about: don't? Your time to report on it was when it was online. If someone has something removed under a right to be forgotten, reporting on that pretty much violates that right, no?
Wouldn't that be in opposition to the spirit of the law, if they just moved the removed results to a second search engine?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f...
Not sure if there's any more recent version of that page.
There are some people who abuse the system (who I hope you identify), and also some people who really should have the right to be forgotten.
As far as I can tell, using a US based VPN/proxy does not censor results - at least, it does not show the message.
Therefore, you just need to cross-reference the results from different geographic regions. However, it will be difficult to tell whether a certain result is missing due to censorship, or the fact that result rankings are slightly different for different countries.
Once you find a "suspicious" result, I guess you could try searching direct quotes from the article - If it doesn't show up in those results, then it's probably censored.
This process will need to be automated, if you want to check every name.
Wouldn't that be in opposition to the spirit of the law, if they just moved the removed results to a second search engine?
E.g. BBC publishes/used to publish the list of their pages that were removed from Google search results for this reason: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f... Not sure if there's any more recent version of that page.