This Right To Be Forgotten issue in Europe seems to have a lot of steam built up behind it, because there is always something going on with it in Europe. In this particular case, we will be speaking of the House of Lords in the UK.
Although most EU countries have been unanimous in their approval of RTBF, the House of Lords is one of the powers that seems to have an issue with it. To a committee of the House of Lords says, RTBF is “unreasonable, unworkable, and wrong.” There is an article in The Guardian that states the following:
[fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][N]ot only was the ruling problematic, the 1995 directive it was based on is itself out-dated, and calls on the government to continue its fight to ensure that “the updated Regulation no longer includes any provision on the lines of the Commission’s ‘right to be forgotten’ or the European Parliament’s ‘right to erasure’”.
“It is crystal clear that the neither the 1995 Directive, nor the CJEU’s interpretation of it reflects the incredible advancement in technology that we see today, over 20 years since the Directive was drafted,” said the committee chairman, Baroness Prashar.
So why are the Lords not in favor of RTBF? Here are the reasons why:
- RTBF isn’t taking into account that the impact on smaller search engines that don’t have the larger resources that Google has.
- The Lords believe that the criteria for RTBF is “vague, ambiguous and unhelpful”
- They believe that search engines should be allowed to interpret the rule for themselves. In this case, the Lords feel that Google shouldn’t be able to sit in judgement about which information remains and what should be removed from its index.
According to the original source, written by Greg Sterling on Search Engine Land, the material that he had seen said that there wasn’t any “alternatives presented to address the underlying European privacy concern that animated the original court decision.”
At this point, what ever is said by the House of Lords, it won’t carry much weight, as they have little power in government or policy making.
Original Source by Greg Sterling
[/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container]