Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bing Implements Right To Be Forgotten

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the hide-your-shame dept.

EU 64

mpicpp (3454017) writes with news that Bing has joined Google in removing search results upon request by EU citizens. From the article: The company has asked European residents, who want Microsoft to block search results that show on Bing in response to searches of their names, to fill out a four-part online form. Besides the name and country of residence of the person and the details of the pages to be blocked, the form also asks if the person is a public figure or has or expects a role that involves trust, leadership or safety. ... The information provided will help the company "consider the balance" between the applicant's individual privacy interest and the public interest in protecting free expression and the free availability of information, in line with European law, Microsoft said. You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results.

cancel ×

64 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (0, Troll)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47476963)

Or is Microsoft just trying to say, "Hey, we have a search engine also. Pay attention to us."

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47477009)

That was my first thought ... all the cool kids are doing it.

So far Google has gotten all the publicity.

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (2)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47477333)

That was my first thought ... all the cool kids are doing it.

...

According to Bloomberg TV, Bing has a whopping 2.5% marketshare in the EU search market.

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (5, Funny)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 2 months ago | (#47477741)

The feature is actually working! I had totally forgotten Bing existed!

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479613)

I had totally forgotten Bing existed!

Do they still make carburetors for BMW?

In the mid '1980s I had to rebuild one of those things in the mud on a Guatemalan roadside. The BMW R80GS I was riding started dumping fuel onto my right boot...

They were good when they worked, but fiddly as hell to fix.

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (1)

Ravaldy (2621787) | about 2 months ago | (#47478347)

2.5% of 18.4 Billions search ad market (as of 2013) is $460 000 000. Are you saying that's nothing?

A growing number is usually a good indicator of a business growing. Question here is whether this increase is due to the defaults in IE or actually adoption of the search engine.

I believe Bing's world search market share is currently 4.25% (as per global stats counter)

Bing who? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 months ago | (#47480323)

What ever Bing is, they should be working on solving the "ability to be known" problem. Solving "right to be forgotten" is fixing a problem they don't have.

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477061)

Or is Microsoft just trying to say, "Hey, we have a search engine also. Pay attention to us."

The ruling doesn't name Google specifically. (like, duh) Every search engine would be legally required to implement the "right to be forgotten".

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (1)

rezme (1677208) | about 2 months ago | (#47485539)

Yes, but can you honestly say that there would it would be noticeable if Bing didn't choose to implement it?

Re:Has anyone been asking Bing for this feature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477585)

I'm sure some guys are sitting around and microsoft in a rocking chair sipping on brandy reminicing about the good ole days when they were forced by court order to do things they didn't really want to do, because they were too successful.

Yeah right ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47476965)

Like anybody uses Bing.

Irony (5, Funny)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 2 months ago | (#47476967)

Is there anyone who had not yet exercised their right to forget Bing?

Re:Irony (2)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 2 months ago | (#47477109)

What's "Bing"?

Re:Irony (4, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 months ago | (#47477147)

Bing
Is
Not
Google

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477191)

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477797)

In case you care, that story was very thoroughly debunked. Perhaps not on Slashdot, but even the main source of the story initially, Dave Sullivan, retracted when the facts became clear. I've since seen the original debunked claim repeated on Slashdot numerous times, which is sad, we used to be anti-fud. What happened was that Google people activated a opt-in feature in Bing IE toolbar to track user activity, then fed it a "secret" site they only knew about - surprise, it is not secret anymore! Even intentionally doing this, the Google people only managed to fool Bing in 7 out of 100 tries or something.

Re:Irony (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 2 months ago | (#47480767)

because Microsoft is more evil than Google so always keep repeating the lies to prove the "fact"

Re:Irony (1)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 2 months ago | (#47477195)

Thanks, Mr. Michael. I've been wondering theses days where does the word "bing" come from. =)

Re:Irony (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47477253)

I've always assumed it was the sound whatever hypothetical machine would make.

"Recipes for turducken" ... Bing!

You know, like where the computer in Star Trek made mechanical noises while it was thinking.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477289)

Is "Archangel Michael" his real name? No insult intended, but that seems unlikely [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Irony (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 months ago | (#47477905)

No, but if you go through the edits of that article there was once a reference to me. Thus proving, anyone can edit Wikipedia. And further proving that useless information can be and often is removed.

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477529)

It came from the original name of the project now know as "bing", which was "bang". Obviously MS didn't want to ruin the term "let me bang you" or "let me bang that".

Re:Irony (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 2 months ago | (#47480981)

Bing : (Scots)
noun: bing; plural noun: bings

a heap, especially of metallic ore or of waste from a mine.

Origin : early 16th century: from Old Norse bingr âheapâ(TM).

Example : here is a pile of useless waste [wikimedia.org] from the 19th century oil-shale workings just outside Edinburgh.

No, seriously. Google it!

Micro$loth's marketing department fucks it up. Again.

Re:Irony (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#47477987)

mpicpp (3454017)
writes with news that Bing has joined Google in removing search results upon request

As usual, Microsoft is late to the party, playing, "Me too!"

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47478607)

Bing
Is
Not
Good

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47480285)

I always thought it was ripped off from Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge. The 3rd Allied level has you in Seattle trying to save Chairman Bing of the Massivesoft Corporation from Yuri. Here's the cutscene at 8:38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiS-MXX5dXk

Re:Irony (1)

dr_blurb (676176) | about 2 months ago | (#47480695)

What's "Bing"?

It's a search engine named after a character in "Friends".

Non-EU (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 2 months ago | (#47476975)

You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results.

That's interesting. Is it the same with Google? I guess I never saw one way or another but I have assumed until now that gone from Google's results meant all of Google, not just TLDs in Europe...

Re:Non-EU (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 months ago | (#47477857)

The gone is gone only from the country specific google domains, ie. Google.fr. You can still access the US indexes and get uncensored results although my bet is that at some point they make Google start filtering access by IP address.

An interesting twist... (5, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47476999)

Microsoft asks google to take down a link, yet Microsoft does not remove that link from Bing. What's up with that?

.
Odd That Microsoft Demands Google Take Down Links That Remain In Bing [techdirt.com]

Re:An interesting twist... (1, Insightful)

kpainter (901021) | about 2 months ago | (#47477179)

That is ok because nobody will ever see the link anyway.

Re:An interesting twist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477217)

That article is over 2 years old...

Don't you have sources that are less stale?

Re:An interesting twist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477225)

Let me Altavista that for you.

Re:An interesting twist... (0)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 months ago | (#47477519)

That article is over 2 years old...

Don't you have sources that are less stale?

No. I used Bing.

It's all about balance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477467)

It is similar to determining how powerful a person is before deciding whether or not to honor the takedown request.

Those who are not very powerful will be denied, because they can't harm Microsoft for non-compliance. Those who are very powerful will always have the request honored, regardless of the facticity of the data being blocked (and with no consideration at all to how important that data may be to the public), since non-compliance could result in some kind of harm to Microsoft.

I thought it was global? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477003)

You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results.

My understanding was that the EU was requiring Google to censor globally, not just the EU versions.

Re:I thought it was global? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479997)

They can only apply this law within the EU and this law is one of the stupidest things to come out of the EU in quite a while and that is really saying something, It's totally subjective in nature which and it places an heavy, unnecessary, and expensive burden on the search engine companies to comply, It's a lot of work just to make sure people don't get embarrassed over their past indiscretions. And even worse since each take down request needs to be reviewed by a real person and have their decisions vetted by their supervisors.

Re:I thought it was global? (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 2 months ago | (#47486829)

That's all part of the cost of doing business... yes? I see little reason why commerce and communication over the web should be any different than commerce and communication via land line telecommunications. It may be correct that the web was envisioned as an "open" communication system but I see no reason whatsoever that the same privacy expectations that use to be applicable to land line communications should not apply to the web. In my opinion, there should be a presumption of privacy in ANY form of communication or doing business. And that those who operate various communication pathways to obtain participants explicit permission to share their information. Now, one may argue that the web as it exists today is completely open and public. Thus, people who utilize such pathways are implicitly granting permission to share their information. However, that's ass backwards from pre-internet expectations. Prior to the web, people had an expectation of privacy and there is no reason the web should be any different. Businesses are explicitly on the web to further their markets and WANT the exposure. But private individuals should have to explicitly grant permission to any third party for release of private and personal information including email, business transactions with specific companies, etc. Including the inability of companies to share information with third parties, affiliates, business partners, etc. Every single thing a person engages in on the web should by statute be considered private and one should not have to give up their privacy to communicate or transact business on the web... period.

Right to be remembered (4, Funny)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about 2 months ago | (#47477099)

Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.

Re:Right to be remembered (1)

praxis (19962) | about 2 months ago | (#47477447)

Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.

Yes! Do something notable. Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.

Re:Right to be remembered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47483893)

Most notable people are still findable on the internets, even hundreds of years later.

What else is true about the internets hundreds of years from now?

Re:Right to be remembered (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47487917)

Can we force search engines to remember us? Some of us don't want to be forgotten.

The easiest way would be to demand the internet forget you. [wikipedia.org]

Sounds Like "Opt-In" To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477127)

Please provide a large amount of personal information in this four part online form so that we can properly forget you. As promised, we'll forget the websites that mention you, but we'll also collect money by selling your updated info to anyone that will pay for it.

Hello, advertising/marketing industry? employee tracking services companies? government health insurance spying/investigation services? NSA? We have some fresh meat for you. Please pay us.

Re:Sounds Like "Opt-In" To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477773)

Yes, sounds like an NSA data collection trick to me.

Finally, a way to find out if your wife is a Robot (1)

Rinikusu (28164) | about 2 months ago | (#47477159)

"Hey, honey, when I did file that right to be forgotten form?"

"I have no recollection of such event, dear."

Re:Finally, a way to find out if your wife is a Ro (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47477227)

Hmmmm ... I'm afraid I don't see how this passes the "is my wife a robot test?"

Honey, have you seen my keys? "Where did you leave them?"

Honey, have you see my wallet? "Why would I know where you left it?"

Honey, what's for dinner? "What are you making?"

None of these things help me tell if my wife is a robot or not. ;-)

Who controls the past controls the future... (2)

Atmchicago (555403) | about 2 months ago | (#47477297)

This is a big step towards re-writing history. It begins with ignoring it, or by actively hiding it. I give it 1 year before we hear of attempts by politicians to cover embarrasing stories that are relevant information to the public, or before corporations hide unpleasant past events such as oil spills (corporations are people too, these days). True, search engines aren't the sole gateways to information, but nowadays people assume that if something isn't found on the first search results page it's probably not important.

Re:Who controls the past controls the future... (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47477545)

This is a big step towards re-writing history. It begins with ignoring it, or by actively hiding it. I give it 1 year before we hear of attempts by politicians to cover embarrasing stories that are relevant information to the public, or before corporations hide unpleasant past events such as oil spills (corporations are people too, these days). True, search engines aren't the sole gateways to information, but nowadays people assume that if something isn't found on the first search results page it's probably not important.

It happens already actually - off line.

The whole "right to be forgotten" is an implementation of the fact that over time, whatever happened people naturally forget about, and getting at those records is hard enough that the effort usually isn't worthwhile.

The Internet, though, is an ever-expanding pile of information, that stuff you did 10 years ago will haunt you for the rest of your life. It's so valuable a resource that industries that traditionally would've just let things slide because they happened so long abo the evidence is sketchy now has access to all the information that most people have long forgotten.

The right to be forgotten doesn't remove content, it just means that the link between the content and the specific search gets broken. There can still be searches that bring up the content (e.g., "BP" may not bring up the oil spill, but "oil spill 2010" can bring it up).

I suppose a common example would be employers who google every prospective employees, only to see that 10, 20, 30+ years ago they did something "bad" and declining to interview because of it. (Generally most content is undated, so determining how long ago something happened can be quite difficult).

Of course, there are also people who google their dates, etc.

And even before this ruling, brand management companies knew how to bury content - just because you did something horrible 3 years ago, doesn't mean you have it have it sit as the 4th link on Google. With a bit of SEO and other techniques, you can bury those past events farther down the line (remembering 90% of the people stop at the first page, and barely any reach the 3rd or 4th page of results, so if you get it page 15, it's buried, or forgotten).

Re:Who controls the past controls the future... (1)

the11thplague (1776646) | about 2 months ago | (#47478603)

The whole "right to be forgotten" is an implementation of the fact that over time, whatever happened people naturally forget about, and getting at those records is hard enough that the effort usually isn't worthwhile.

Except this was not the original "right to be forgotten", which was discussed by the European Parliament and meant "I want Facebook to forget MY OWN data I provided it with". That was lobbied aside by Yahoo! and Co. This is related to a ruling by the Supreme European Court (different entity) and the press called it "right to be forgotten" putting a new meaning to an old concept. This nice little trick by the press hijacked all possibilities of debating the old meaning, which made much more sense, actually.

Re:Who controls the past controls the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477607)

it's already happening, open your eyes and don't rely solely on Google

Re:Who controls the past controls the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479049)

And how long before some government claims the right to make someone unpopular, a pedophile or terrorist perhaps, into an unperson?

Re:Who controls the past controls the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47479217)

Oh, for goodness' sake - that's been happening for years.

You know what was the first thing that changed, online, the day President Obama took office? Every press release, every speech, every item added to the whitehouse.gov website by the Bush administration got taken down. Millions of links all over the internet were broken overnight. (Of course Bush did the same thing at the beginning of his term, but then he never claimed to understand the internet.)

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you link to a news story or press release from a few years ago, how many times has it been revised since it was first published? How many more times will it be revised, after you've linked it? And if you think all those revisions are going to be tracked and visible, I've got a nice internet to sell you...

Re:Who controls the past controls the future... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47485463)

This is double plus good

so is this how it is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477331)

$forget Microsoft
OK
$forget Windows
OK
$forget Bing
OK

receive uncensored results? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 months ago | (#47477423)

I don't believe that for a second. Everybody is censoring now. Of course in the US the laws mandating censorship are secret, cuz, you know, terrorists.

Got it right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477537)

Definitely Bing is the right search engine for being forgotten.

Does it make any difference? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47477611)

Last time I checked, Bing's presence in Europe (and elsewhere) was all but negligible.

Microsoft doing the right thing (0)

rsborg (111459) | about 2 months ago | (#47477879)

It was mentioned in another slashdot post that Google was perhaps undertaking some malicious compliance [1] in following the EU directive, essentially removing an article that referenced a person instead of just making his name not show the result.

By mentioning that they have a responsibility to balance public interest verses the privacy needs of the individual, they're showing more maturity in their response than Google did.

I don't say this too often but... props to Microsoft.

[1] http://search.slashdot.org/com... [slashdot.org]

Bing is irrelevant. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47478071)

And dead.
Then, who cares.

Is this possible with google searches too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47478523)

That is, to find search results that has been removed because of this insane EU law, using for example google.com? I live in EU. If so, how come no one has mentioned this?

Soon to be censored worldwide? (1)

1080bogus (1015303) | about 2 months ago | (#47481675)

"You can always visit a non-EU version of Bing to receive uncensored results."

According to the US Government, they should be able to access data worldwide as long as the company operates in the US. What's stopping the EU from demanding all search pages be censored? I realize one is asking for data and the other is filtering, but it's that slippery slope. One government can do something "worldwide", what's stopping others from doing the same thing with companies that operate in their country?

What about my right to be remembered? (1)

Ean Bowman (3438945) | about 2 months ago | (#47483647)

Remember me, Internet. For all of the intelligent and the silly things I have done. Who am I kidding? Nobody cares about me.

Street photography is illegal in the EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47495441)

The 'right to be forgotten' from search engines is politically the same issue about photography without permission: do we want to live in a society in which an individual who is in public (e.g. in the street) has the right to not be photographed by another individual? It's a freedom of speech issue. Europeans have decided they want privacy and now you need a written signed model release from any person who is visible in your photos. The same with search engines: now search enginers will need a signed written permission from any person whose data appears in search results or risk being asked to take the links down because of the 'right to be forgotten'.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>