Ex-MP asks Google for 'right to be forgotten'

A British former MP seeking re-election is among more than 1,000 people who have asked Google to remove links to unfavourable online stories about them in the wake of a European Court ruling just three days ago, the Telegraph can reveal.

Sources at the search giant refused to name the politician, but said yesterday Google’s UK arm alone received 35 new requests it remove links to unfavourable stories about people. Among those were 20 convicted criminals, including a paedophile, who requested that old references to their crimes no longer appear in Google search results about them.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images and a GP who received negative reviews from patients are also among those who have asked Google to delete their internet histories.

The European Court of Justice said earlier this week that an individual has the "right to be forgotten" when personal data online "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purpose for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed".

The ruling only compels Google to remove the links to information, rather than the information itself. This means users of Facebook, Twitter and other social media can still share personal information about others so long as it remains online.

EU Commissioner Viviane Reding described the decision as "a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans", and former shadow home secretary David Davis MP welcomed the ruling as a "sensible decision", claiming that this is "the first step in people having property rights in their own information".

However, Dominic Raab, MP for Esher and Walton, called the ruling "a draconian attack on free speech and transparency, totally at odds with Britain’s liberal tradition", and the Open Rights Group said the ruling could pose a threat to free speech.

Lawyers and campaigners have suggested the vague ruling will unravel in the face of further test cases, but for now Google itself must make a “balanced judgment” on whether a link to a story should be removed from its web index. If it decides not to remove a link, it face fines from each national data protection regulator across Europe, including 16 in Germany alone. Each case could ultimately end up in the European court.

Google denied reports in Germany that it would fully comply with the new ruling within two weeks, and said no links had yet been removed. A Google spokesman said “The ruling has significant implications for how we handle takedown requests. This is logistically complicated - not least because of the many languages involved and the need for careful review. As soon as we have thought through exactly how this will work, which may take several weeks, we will let our users know.”

Sources at the company told The Telegraph they are yet to figure out how to deal with the expected flood of requests and will need to build up an "army of removal experts" in each of the 28 European Union countries.

"Data Protection law only requires data to be kept for such time as is necessary for the relevant purpose and so this could be an issue here," said Kim Walker, partner and technology specialist at leading law firm Thomas Eggar LLP.

"What it should not mean is that anyone who does not like something written about them but which is otherwise factually correct and current can demand that search results are edited. So what the ruling may mean in practical terms is for 'old data' to be given less prominence in search results.”

Sally Annereau, a data protection analyst at the law firm Taylor Wessing said she “wouldn’t be surprised if it starts to unravel around the edges”. Google said it would seek to document the numbers of takedown requests in its regular ‘Transparency Report’, which currently records requests from governments.

The original case involved a Spanish man, Mario Costeja Gonzalez, who was concerned that a Google search on him brought up two stories dating from 1998 from the website of La Vanguardia, the Spanish newspaper, concerning an auction of his real estate to repay social security debts. His quest to keep the story private means it is now also permanently associated with the Court's landmark, public ruling.