David Cameron has reservations about the removal of factually correct information from the internet after a European court backed the principle of people having a «right to be forgotten», Downing Street has suggested.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said Cameron was still considering the ruling.
«I think the prime minister’s view is that it is right that people take some time to look at this judgment. I think whilst taking time to consider and look at the judgment and possible implications, his view is that there is potentially a distinction to be drawn between dealing with the issue of information that is wrong, and correction of factually inaccurate information, as distinct from what some have characterised as seeking to hide factually correct information.
«I think that is a distinction that is relevant to this … the judgment is a fairly recent judgment, and a large number of parties will be considering it closely.»
Hundreds of people, including a former politician seeking re-election, a paedophile and a doctor, have applied to have details about them wiped from Google’s search index since the ruling last Tuesday.
Asked whether a politician should be able to have information about their past removed from the internet, the spokesman said: «I think rather than pick on and try and draw distinctions between particular groups, he would tend to consider a distinction between information that is factually inaccurate that may be online and information that is accurate.»
When asked about the issue last week, Cameron said he endorsed the basic principle that «your information belongs to you», but said he had not had the time to consider the decision in full.
Since the European court of justice ruling, applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant. The former UK politician now seeking election again wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are removed, and a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.
Google, which has more than 90% of the search market in Europe, declined to comment on how many applications it had received, or their nature.
«The ruling has significant implications for how we handle take-down requests. This is logistically complicated not least because of the many languages involved and the need for careful review,» a Google representative said.
«As soon as we have thought through exactly how this will work, which may take several weeks, we will let our users know.»
The prime minister’s official spokesman said Cameron was still considering the ruling.
«I think the prime minister’s view is that it is right that people take some time to look at this judgment. I think whilst taking time to consider and look at the judgment and possible implications, his view is that there is potentially a distinction to be drawn between dealing with the issue of information that is wrong, and correction of factually inaccurate information, as distinct from what some have characterised as seeking to hide factually correct information.
«I think that is a distinction that is relevant to this … the judgment is a fairly recent judgment, and a large number of parties will be considering it closely.»
Hundreds of people, including a former politician seeking re-election, a paedophile and a doctor, have applied to have details about them wiped from Google’s search index since the ruling last Tuesday.
Asked whether a politician should be able to have information about their past removed from the internet, the spokesman said: «I think rather than pick on and try and draw distinctions between particular groups, he would tend to consider a distinction between information that is factually inaccurate that may be online and information that is accurate.»
When asked about the issue last week, Cameron said he endorsed the basic principle that «your information belongs to you», but said he had not had the time to consider the decision in full.
Since the European court of justice ruling, applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant. The former UK politician now seeking election again wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are removed, and a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.
Google, which has more than 90% of the search market in Europe, declined to comment on how many applications it had received, or their nature.
«The ruling has significant implications for how we handle take-down requests. This is logistically complicated not least because of the many languages involved and the need for careful review,» a Google representative said.
«As soon as we have thought through exactly how this will work, which may take several weeks, we will let our users know.»
