Quantcast

Google May Have To Delete Search Results When Requested

    May 13, 2014
    Chris Crum
    Comments are off for this post.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that Google and other search engines must delete search results at people’s request in some cases, and it’s up to the search engines to determine when to comply. If an agreement can’t be reached between the search engine and the person requesting the deletion of information, then they’ll have to go to court to sort it out.

Some people have wanted to be able to have information about themselves removed from Google for years, and this is a major development in that storyline. On the other side of the coin, some would say that being forced to get rid of info about people just because they don’t like it amounts to censorship. That’s Google’s argument.

What do you think? Should Google have to remove search results about people at their request? Share your opinion in the comments.

This particular case involves Spanish man Mario Costeja, who complained of an auction notice of his repossessed home, which is now resolved, continuing to show up in Google search results, infringing upon his privacy. There are at least 180 more similar cases in Spain alone, where people want Google to get rid of search results for one reason or another.

The issue is certainly not limited to Spain. There are people all over the world, who would love to see certain pieces of information about themselves disappear from Google’s search results. People charged with crimes, but acquitted, for example, don’t want stories about their arrests showing up in Google results for their names (not that those who weren’t acquitted do either).

It’s not that Google doesn’t care about this stuff at all. Last year, they launched an algorithm update to demote shady mugshot sites that show people’s mugshots, and make them pay for removal.

Google hasn’t written about this latest ruling yet, but, Google’s Head of Free Expression William Echikson wrote in February of last year, after declining to comply with an order for the Spanish Data Protection Authority:

We were asked to remove links from our search results that point to a legal notice published in a newspaper. The notice, announcing houses being auctioned off as part of a legal proceeding, is required under Spanish law and includes factually correct information that is still publicly available on the newspaper’s website.

There are clear societal reasons why this kind of information should be publicly available. People shouldn’t be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice. The substantive question before the Court today is whether search engines should be obliged to remove links to valid legal material that still exists online.

We believe the answer to that question is “no”. Search engines point to information that is published online – and in this case to information that had to be made public, by law. In our view, only the original publisher can take the the decision to remove such content. Once removed from the source webpage, content will disappear from a search engine’s index.

Of course, there will also be times when information is published online that is subsequently found by a court to be incorrect, defamatory or otherwise illegal. Such content can be removed from the source website and from search engines. But search engines should not be subject to censorship of legitimate content for the sake of privacy – or for any other reason.

I don’t imagine their stance has changed much since then.

The AP did get a statement from Google spokesman Al Verney, who called the ruling “disappointing … for search engines and online publishers in general,” and said Google will “now need to take time to analyze the implications.”

The ruling says that Google and other search engines have to weigh “the legitimate interest of Internet users potentially interested in having access to that information” against the privacy implications of what is being requested for removal. If the search engine doesn’t want to remove something, but the person wants to fight it, they may need to go to a local judge or regulator.

“An internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties,” says a press release from the court. “Thus, if, following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, the list of results displays a link to a web page which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results.”

More from the document:

So far as concerns, next, the extent of the responsibility of the operator of the search engine, the Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to remove links to web pages that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a person from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s name. The Court makes it clear that such an obligation may also exist in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.

The Court points out in this context that processing of personal data carried out by such an operator enables any internet user, when he makes a search on the basis of an individual’s name, to obtain, through the list of results, a structured overview of the information relating to that individual on the internet. The Court observes, furthermore, that this information potentially concerns a vast number of aspects of his private life and that, without the search engine, the information could not have been interconnected or could have been only with great difficulty. Internet users may thereby establish a more or less detailed profile of the person searched against. Furthermore, the effect of the interference with the person’s rights is heightened on account of the important role played by the internet and search engines in modern society, which render the information contained in such lists of results ubiquitous. In the light of its potential seriousness, such interference cannot, according to the Court, be justified by merely the economic interest which the operator of the engine has in the data processing.

However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, the Court holds that a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data. The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, this balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.

Finally, in response to the question whether the directive enables the data subject to request that links to web pages be removed from such a list of results on the grounds that he wishes the information appearing on those pages relating to him personally to be ‘forgotten’ after a certain time, the Court holds that, if it is found, following a request by the data subject, that the inclusion of those links in the list is, at this point in time, incompatible with the directive, the links and erased. The Court observes in this regard that even initially lawful processing of accurate data may, in the course of time, become incompatible with the having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the data appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed. The Court adds that, when appraising such a request made by the data subject in order to oppose the processing carried out by the operator of a search engine, it should in particular be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results that is displayed following a search made on the basis of his name. If that is the case, the links to web pages containing that information must be removed from that list of results, unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made.

The Court points out that the data subject may address such a request directly to the operator of the search engine (the controller) which must then duly examine its merits. Where the controller does not grant the request, the data subject may bring the matter before the supervisory authority or the judicial authority so that it carries out the necessary checks and orders the controller to take specific measures accordingly.

Here’s the full text of the judgment of the court. Here’s the press release about it, which is a bit easier to digest.

Google has been fighting this battle with other parties throughout Europe for some time. The big story last year was about former Formula One Racing head Max Mosley, who allegedly attended an orgy, which came in a leaked video in 2008. He’s been fighting Google in court to have results about that removed.

Google also blogged about that in September with a post called “Fighting against a censorship machine.”

“We sympathize with Mr. Mosley, and with anyone who believes their rights have been violated,” wrote Google Associate General Counsel Daphne Keller. “We offer well-established tools to help people to remove specific pages from our search results when those pages have clearly been determined to violate the law. In fact, we have removed hundreds of pages for Mr. Mosley, and stand ready to remove others he identifies.”

“But the law does not support Mr. Mosley’s demand for the construction of an unprecedented new Internet censorship tool,” she added. “In repeated rulings, Europe’s highest court has noted that filters are blunt instruments that jeopardise lawful expression and undermine users’ fundamental right to access information. A set of words or images may break the law in one context, but be lawful in another. As an example, a filter might end up censoring news reports about Mr. Mosley’s own court case.”

Mosley may be happy to see the latest ruling in Spain, though it doesn’t mean he’d ultimately get the content removed as he wants. It would likely just mean more time in courtrooms – something the ruling is probably going to mean a whole lot more of for Google itself.

It will be interesting to see how high the numbers of complaints jump up after the ruling. It’s unclear what impact the ruling will have on Google’s policy in Spain or the rest of the world. To be continued…

What do you make of the ruling? Is this a win for privacy and online reputation management or is it a dangerous precedent opening up a huge can of worms? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Image via Google

  • CJPStaff

    We deal with intellectual property rights, branding, images of artists, all the time in the music recording industry. There are laws to protect people’s rights in regard to search engines that maybe understood by research as we are having an issue where someone with the same name as a Grammy voting recording artist is using the google bing search engines to direct people to their web sites etc. online. We looked at this webpage for advice in how to proceed legally. You may want to read this as well:
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another
    The search engines for over a year or two have not heard our request as to removing this alleged imposter who is out of the USA allegedly using Nikki Hornsby’s name and search engines replacing with their image online which may misdirect consumers of CJP-NHRecords Nikki Hornsby products. It is a fine line to walk but we are confident that this issue will soon resolve itself. We appreciate that we can share online our findings. Thank you, CJPStaff for Grammy artist Nikki Hornsby

    • http://www.truckertwotimes.com/ Truckertwotimes

      Rest assured the NSA is keeping everyone safe starting today…

  • Scott

    I would like to see a law that states that an individual person owns the right to their personal information and likeness and that anyone wishing to use that information in any way, shape or form must seek permission from the owner and pay a licensing fee to publish that information. I also believe that a person should have the right to have any personal information removed for any reason upon request.

  • http://fat-karate-ka.com Stacy

    Why have the Search Engine remove the results? Wouldn’t it make more sense to sue the offendign Web site(s) remove the outdated and embarassing information?

    • wertwert

      That only works if the website owner still exists, speaks your language, is in a legal jurisdiction where you can take action,… It is google’s index that makes the information so devastating… Google is in a place to do something about it. Google makes money from crawling the web. Google should has some accountability for what it does with that information on its own websites.

    • guest

      I agree fully with Stacy. It is the source website’s responsibility to police their own content. Just because Google presents a larger target (and wallet), that does not make them responsible for the source material. Also, did these paople only sue Google, or did they sue every search provider on the planet? Correcting the source would automatically correct all search results.

    • Jasper

      I have been the subject of a smear campaign by a person with relatively deep pockets (never worked a day) and dubious mental health. This person wrote lies about me in regards to my profession in various places across the internet. I was able to remove most of it by talking directly to the persons at the websites and proving with letters and documentation that the offending material was untrue. However with regards to a particularly damaging site, whose servers are out of the US with no laws, I was unable to have the total lies removed. They proudly say they never remove anything. It is well known to be a very malignant site yet Google trumpets the results at the top of its list.

      • Old Solar Guy

        sites like this are not in the public interest. I believe this particular site does not allow the source publisher to remove anything either. So if someone smears you and later is sorry they cannot remove it either. I believe sites like this should be reviewed and banned from search indexes, not promoted by Google and such.

  • http://richinwriters.com/ RichInWriters

    I think people have a right to have their personal information removed from Google or any other search engine for that matter. This makes for interesting search results in the future because this basically means that human intervention will be involved in search results because from my understanding derivatives of personal information that might be in search results will have to be removed as well? Which could lead to penalties in search results which will could lead to a whole new search experience. Very interesting…

  • http://THGMwriters.com David Leonhardt

    Google and the court are not that far apart on this. Both say that if the information is accurate and legal and published on a reputable website, it stays. Both say that if the information is slanderous and inaccurate, it goes. The nuance is in where you draw the line and how to decide what is and what is not solid information. The court has still left it in Google’s hands to make the call; it has simply given individuals the go-ahead to go to court.

    Chances are that Google will end up erring on the side of not forking out a gazillion dollars in legal fees, and will delete more pages than it would really like to.

    • Chris Crum

      Yeah, either way it’s a significant compromise.

  • Networx

    Google has too much information on all of us and we all have the right to remove unwanted personal information, including search results.

  • huguesdb

    So the court ruling says that if I don’t like an info published by or about me, I can ask for it to be removed from search engines as my personal interest predominates on the public interest ?

    What about the source of the information ? And one has to request all search engines ? This seems as absurd as asking a teacher to change an exam result because I don’t like it or having a published article about me removed because its negative.

    I believe the press has a solution – publishing corrections. Why not a similar mechanism with search engines ? If a correction is published, it will be referenced, in all probability.

    Basically, if I do stupid, (or not), things in public, or it becomes public knowledge, then that’s it – the information is out. Trying to hide it is called revisionism. The very essence of search engines, and their power, comes from presenting a lot of information on a topic – whether it be my name or the state of the ozone layer.

    Trying to flog the messengers is definitely not the solution and its not because the messenger is verbose (as are search engines) that we should muzzle him.

    To me, the ruling is a muddled and confused response to a simple problem. Its clearly (to me) censorship, revisionist, a limitation of the freedom of speech and an attack on the liberty of the press ( google is clearly ta news medium, but with a good memory).

    Judge, you are fired!
    😉

    • Old Solar Guy

      You apparently have never been slandered by some crazy claiming protection under free speech.

  • http://pestcontrolseo.wordpress.com/ Thos003

    This is a tough call. Google is not the source of the information. But they certainly amplify the information. When the information isn’t accurate then it seems fair that google should remove it. But to what extent are they going to need to prove the inaccuracy of the information?

    As for accurate information, I can see how removing it is censorship. I can also see how leaving up a single mistake could stain a reputation for an entire lifetime. It would be nice if the algorithm adjusted so that dated offenses are displayed much lower in the general searches for one’s name only.

  • Sky

    Everyone deserves the right to privacy. Search engines may say but it’s our right to publish any and all information regardless of the persons wants wishes or desires. But what about respecting one another as people. I may know something shameful my neighbor is ashamed of but no where does that give me the right to publish that information. Mainly because it’s none of my business. Today people don’t respect themselves so how are they to respect their fellow man. Perhaps the world we all shair and all have commented on the troubles around the world all comes down to simply respecting ourselves in order to mind our own business.

    • huguesdb

      Undeniably, everyone deserves the right to privacy. As of the moment an information becomes public, whether in a local newspaper, a blog or personal but public website, or official publication, the situation is totally different. ‘Amplifying’ information, as Google does, is in no way denying that right. Its just decent and respectful that u don’t chronic your neighbor’s doings but the role of the press and other communication media is undeniably an asset to our societies. Lets mind our own business and let others do so as well!

  • Jon

    Firstly this is a European ruling and its up to Europeans to decide what is acceptable in terms of freedom of speech as long as Europeans are happy with the ruling then it is a matter between Europe and Google. If Google operates in the EU then it has to do what the EU dictates – the US does not relinquish sovereignity to foreign organisations or companies why should we Europeans do different – its our choice and the choice of the leaders and bodies that we choose collectively to represent us.

    In general I think Google should be subject to more scrutiny than say a newspaper. Newspapers get old and are thrown away – its an ideal medium in many ways as it is possible to publicise a whole lot of things in the public interest but unless the topic is particularly hot it all dies down quickly and the rest of us can get on with our lives and the parties involved can usually go back to relative anonimity.

    The problem here is the sticking power of search results – they can last a long time and you are just as likely to pick up old news as you are to pick up current news. How often have you decided to reply to a forum entry only to finally see that its five years old and the thread is now closed? This stuff even mindless drivel with no real informational value sticks around the web for a long time, perhaps decades we dont really know yet.

    When is the last time you read a five year old newspaper?

    Different media – different rules!

    Whatever we have done (wrong) when we have paid our dues, paid the fine, done our dues we deserve to go back to anominity and the web does not offer this.

    So yes if the European courts uphold a decision to remove results then Google damn well better do as its told – its about time Google stopped thinking its God and started respecting Governments including those outside of the US.

    • http://kurt-penberg.blogspot.com/ Kurt Penberg

      Google always show fair result it may b possible Google delete result after court notification otherwise Google serach engine show all those result that should be visible

    • huguesdb

      That this is an American, European or Asian ruling is of no relevance.. imho. The internet transcends national barriers – we are so fortunate that something does !
      On the contrary, Google should be far less subject to scrutiny – it invents or reports no NEW information – just what has been written. Don’t blame the messenger.
      As for sticking power, peoples with no collective memory don’t advance and make the same mistakes over and over again. Europe is an unfortunate example of that.
      As for Google acting as God.. well, that’s an interesting debate but personally, I would say google is definitely the ‘anti-God’ – light by information and not ignorance… tough one!

  • Xangis

    I run a small search engine (WbSrch.com) and I get one or two requests per day to remove sites or links. Official policy is this: “If you have a public-facing website on the internet, you should expect that it will be indexed by search engines. If you do not want this to happen, you always have the option of shutting down your website.”

    If these people want to have their information removed from search engines, they need to have that information removed from the original source. The rest will sort itself out.

    • huguesdb

      Bravo… simple, effective and logical!
      :)

    • Old Solar Guy

      Yeah… try to get something removed from Rip-Offs. It must be nice in your world with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. There are things that are not capable of getting “sorted out” as in Rip Offs which lasts forever and has top ranking on Google.

  • http://www.short-term-finance.co.uk/ Short-Term-Finance.co.uk

    I don’t want my personalise details appearing in the search results, whether it’s good bad, or indifferent. I might have run into a burning building and carried two children out, I would prefer to stay anonymous. Likewise, if I got a speeding ticket, I wouldn’t want that indexable online.

    Everyone has the right to privacy and if you request any website to remove any personal stories they should have to oblige.

    However, i believe things like criminal records should be searchable through the correct channel, like on the Police website, not anyone having the ability to publish this stuff.

    The Spanish guy in the article is spot on. He should be able to have that information about him only available in the official place WITH the settled order published alongside it. It shouldn’t be allowed to be published elsewhere.

    All newspapers should be non indexable. Mainly because it’s all a load of crap they print anyway.

  • evsroll

    This seems particularly ironic since many or most people reading WebProNews probably want to be found by search, not dropped!

  • Bantu

    It is Google’s job to provide search results, not nanny them.

    There are already laws against slander. Use them.

    This is every bit as bad as censoring for political correctness. It will impair communication. It will cost absurd amounts of money. It punishes all the wrong people. It piles more useless laws on top of existing laws which are already more than sufficient. This is a huge step towards true censorship of the worst kind.

    • Old Solar Guy

      It costs a small fortune to use laws these days… which leaves most of us just slandered. I saw a report from some crazy slandering a pancake waitress about her service naming her name and home address. You thing she should spend a few paychecks to sue?

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/108858749171200112503?rel=author Adreana Langston

    This does not speak well of the user experience. Let us say that I am actually looking for foreclosed homes because I am someone who buys distressed homes and flips them. As a Google user, it does not help my experience at all to have Spanish Man’s home listed as being in foreclosure when, in fact, he resolved this issue and the home is not in foreclosure.

    Or let us say that I am an employer looking up Spanish Man in particular. Showing that his home is in foreclosure may cause me to offer him salary $XYZ.00 because I think he is desperate and I can low ball him. Because he is NOT desperate he refuses my offer and goes to work for someone else. Google’s incomplete information about Spanish Man caused me to make an unwise decision regarding my hiring practices.

    I wonder how many complaints Google gets not from people complaining about factual information that appears about them online but people complaining about information that appears online about them without the facts being complete? In Spanish Man’s case the difference between Home In Foreclosure and Worked Something Out With Mortgage Company And Is Still In Possession of Home is humungous.

  • Tony

    It’s not only stored personal information that should be deleted on request, but obsolete information as well. The internet is clogged with totally out of date and defunct websites and blurb, which should have long ago been removed both to aid security and speed up browsing.

  • An E. Nonomus

    This is a good idea. There are so many lies, insults, false information, innuendos, etc. that need to be removed because they are wrong, outdated, and can unjustly hurt a person’s reputation.

  • Obamatronzombie

    I see a parallel between search engines and credit reporting agencies. Both fight against consumer control of personal information. Both earn income from storing and sharing that personal information. In reality, clearing personal information from one site would not affect the information in all the other sites. Anonymity has become a hopeless dream. The only option, I believe, would be to go off-line.

    In the early 1970s, when data between government databases first began being shared information, it became clear that this would eventually happen. With the development of search engines the knowledge those devices learn about our personal thought became much more intrusive. Now with each of us owning so many interconnected network devices, we are in jeopardy. The only thing we can do is make sure that our government is not run by secretive idiots who believe that thought contrary to their standard is dangerous. It is our responsibility to pay attention and evaluate everything we see. When they lie to us we need to fire them. Have you been lied to lately? Get to works. Maybe you can do a Google search for “Liars”.

    • Old Solar Guy

      A credit reporting agency has a fair procedure to correct wrong information. Google simply says it’s not their responsibility in any way, they just report and if you can’t find who has wrongly reported you… tough s**t.

  • Harald

    What Google or any “Secret Services” do with all the personal information available is another topic. The main point here is that we must not shoot the messenger. It is simply ridiculous that Google has to remove the link whereas the original information may remain!

    • Old Solar Guy

      But if you can’t find the culprit at least it should not be propagated by Google… It should be left obscure.

  • http://www.truckertwotimes.com/ Truckertwotimes

    No, everyone has a cell phone the info is out there anyhow and the NSA needs to keep busy to earn that easy $80,000 a year for playing on their investor paid for computer slash gaming systems

  • http://www.ycdbsoya.com/ Mikael E. Widengren

    Yes!

    Mikael E. Widengren
    http://www.Ycdbsoya.com/
    Internet-Strateg & Affärsjurist & Digital PR Konsult
    Telefon 0721 – 58 80 73 * Skype: Ycdbsoya.com
    E-post: mikael.e.widengren@ycdbsoya.com

  • Scott G

    Tough issues. I see it as a 2 parter – rebroadcast of “public” information, and sourcing access to “private” information. The first is OK (provided copyrights etc are respected), the second is not. An example of the first is public domain information – like a sketch of pigeon that is copyright free. An example of the second is elevator footage of beyonce’s sister – that information was never meant to be public, and was released to the public via criminal activity (i.e. STEALING the PRIVATE footage). Accessory to the fact – that’s what Google is guilty of. That there is money at stake for titillating the public’s interest doesn’t change that it’s wrong. Just because everybody’s doing it – doesn’t make it right.

  • http://www.caravitahomecare.com Beth Cayce

    Yes deletion should be allowed.

  • JustTruthVerdad

    Key topic: Google ‘Search Quality’ fiasco —
    GOOGLE HYPOCRISY & Predatory Corruption
    re: obscene fraudulent nonsense-string (scraped names) WebSpam that is prevalent in Google Search Results

    > Question:
    Is Google deliberately abetting
    corrupt obscene fraudulent Israeli/Russian-jewish organized-crime WebSpam & WebSCAM porn
    for profit ??

    Related, significant info. re: Google Corp.:
    http://johannesmehlem.com/google-search-quality-at-seo-campixx-2014/

    (& see Link, July 2013)
    “Google gets Lowest Score Ever in Customer Satisfaction Survey” =>
    http://searchengineland.com/google-sees-lowest-score-ever-in-customer-satisfaction-survey-167600
    >> also, view:
    “Customer Service Scoreboard” site (note: Google Corp. has ‘Terrible” rating) =>
    http://www.customerservicescoreboard.com/Google

    Please be aware that…
    (‘Google groupie’) Ashley Berman Hale serves as an operative shill
    for Israeli/Russian-Jewish organized crime protecting their ‘Porn Empire’
    — this explains why her comments are uselessly snarky
    and she is deliberately unhelpful to the victims of corrupt,
    obscene, fraudulent (scraped names, phone#) WebSpam sites —
    corrupt (random nonsense-string) Spam-Junk sites which are clandestinely abetted by Google Corp. (for profit)
    and which ludicrously proliferate in typical awful-quality Google search results.

    * please note: I am honestly reporting the above
    info. — I myself am jewish heritage & I’m the
    daughter of holocaust survivors —
    however, the public should realize it is a FACT that many criminal-scam websites
    perpetrating ‘search abuse’, (including obscene & fraudulent scraped names, phone# etc.)
    WebSpam sites, are controlled by Israeli/Russian-Jewish organized crime — and are harbored/facilitated
    and protected or even promoted by Google Corporation.
    ==========

    ASHLEY BERMAN HALE provides ‘cover’
    for Google Corp. harmful corruption
    & lack of responsible business practices…

    please note: I assuredly guarantee that Google Corp. affiliates immediately remove
    any corrupt WebScam listings that
    mention themselves !
    > Google Corp. affiliates protect themselves
    but not YOU — the general public —
    from corrupt obscene fraudulent WebSpam (scraped names, phone#, etc.)
    that is creepily, awfully abundant in typical Google search results !

    => Google’s HYPOCRISY
    & deleterious corporate practices !
    Google’s so-called SPAM REPORTS are
    apparently USELESS wastes of time!

    > Attention: MATT CUTTS,
    Google ‘Search Quality’ Team
    (& affiliated Google staff & Google shills)

    Please note: Ashley’s prior “Webmaster Central” comments are not relevant,
    because as I stated, I already prevously submitted Google Spam Reports several times —
    And… the (supposed) Google standards-violating
    corrupt obscene WebSpam site is quite BLATANTLY
    & OBVIOUSLY using randomly SCRAPED Names
    & words, as displayed by Google in the crappy
    search results NONSENSE-String SNIPPET
    (shown below) !

    WHY has Google ‘search quality’ apparently
    DETERIORATED, in general ??

    Unfortunately, Google ‘search results’ are chockfull of corrupt, harmfully fraudulent,
    erroneous & meaningless nonsense-string (random scraped words/names hodgepodge)
    listings — including ludicrous & obscene SNIPPETS that display people’s
    full names & business names, fraudulently mis-used within WEBSPAM SEARCH ABUSE !!

    see egregious example —
    this type of sleazy WebSpam which Google Corp. seems to abet…
    =>
    Note: Ashley Berman Hale thinks that the fraudulent mis-use
    of randomly scraped names is not problematic for… other people
    (for the ‘peons’), but let’s see how she
    likes to be exploited by Google Corp. sleazy corrupt recklessness
    when it happens to her:

    !!LOOKING FOR CASUAL SAFE SECURE SEX!!
    droom design …
    http://www.gaymafia.info/217.html‎
    … homes.com http://www.for rent las.com http://www.vegas.comwww ……
    ASHLEY BERMAN HALE Cisco … teacher leani may mp jocks.com http://www.oral sex pastoralopenings.com http://www.sk marine …

    ===========
    WHY is Google Corp. seemingly promoting &
    proliferating this obscene and fraudulent
    scraped-names nonsense garbage ??
    — Exactly WHO is profiteering
    from deliberately awful-quality, crappy
    & sleazy search results !!
    >>>>>>

    Attn: Alan Eustace, Amit Singhal, Matt Cutts
    and GOOGLE ‘Search Quality’ Team

    See example of corrupt obscene nonsense-string (search abuse) WebSpam
    that is fraudulently & erroneously
    mis-using my full name, which is displayed in Google snippets.
    Note: I don’t have any connection whatsoever with this disgusting corrupt website,
    which has obviously scraped my name and other contents of random names & words…
    (see problem snippet below) = Google Corporation’s typical crappy, misleading & fraudulent
    OBSCENE SPAM-JUNK ‘search result’ SNIPPET =>

    !!LOOKING FOR CASUAL SAFE SECURE SEX!! droom design … http://www.gaymafia.info/217.html‎
    … homes.com http://www.for rent las.com http://www.vegas.com …. Matt Cutts … teacher leani may mp jocks.com Larry Page http://www.oral sex pastoralopenings.com http://www.sk marine …

    !!LOOKING FOR CASUAL SAFE SECURE SEX!! droom design …
    http://www.gaymafia.info/217.html‎
    corrupt Google WebSpam … Amanda Rosenberg … Amit Singhal … typical Google crappy search result … homes.com http://www.for rentlas.com John Mueller http://www.vegas.com ….Matt Cutts … teacher
    leani may mp jocks.com Larry Page http://www.oral sex pastoralopenings.com Sergey Brin http://www.sk marine … Sundar Pichai ….. Alan Eustace

    –> Attention: GOOGLE EMPLOYEES
    REMOVE THIS (Fraudulent Search Abuse) Snippet IMMEDIATELY ! —
    The Google ‘Web Removal Tool’ procedure has been USELESS
    & INEFFECTIVE !!!
    Also, I have tried filling out Google ‘Spam Report’
    form several times to no avail !
    This is the specific ‘Search Abuse’ WEBSPAM site =>
    http://www.gaymafia.info/217.html‎

    ADDITIONAL NOTE! =
    I recently discovered to my shock that the above-listed (corrupt fraudulent obscene) website
    is a Google Corp. ADVERTISER which actually posts advertisements on Google+ (Google Plus) pages !!!

    > Google Corp. in recent years conducts itself in a deleteriously callous
    manner toward the general public.

    ###

  • Old Solar Guy

    We have a single report on the internet from someone whom was never even a customer. She has slandered our company saying we blackmailed her, committed fraud and that she had to sue us. None of which ever happened. this happened over five years ago yet it still appears on the first page of a Google search.
    We don’t have the funds to go after her in court. Anyone can supposedly say anything about anybody and publish it with impunity and the slandered party has to get a court order to have it removed. Google told us they have no responsibility in the matter, but don’t you think the publishing party should have some responsibility to prove what they allege is true.

  • coglilaatimo

    if you have been affected by your mugshot being posted and not taken down when the case was dropped, expunged or dismissed, please sign my official petition to the white house. there are hundreds of petitions out there and with all those signatures combined in one government funded place we should be able to have action taken.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/removal-mugshot-websites-defaming-reputations-good-standing-citizens/gN6rxTBM