Helios Salinger

  • About
    • About Salinger Privacy – now Helios Salinger
    • Meet our team
    • Work with us
    • Videos, Podcasts and Media Mentions
    • Privacy Awareness Week
  • Consulting
    • Overview – Our Consulting Services
    • Privacy Impact Assessment
    • Privacy Maturity Assessment
    • Privacy by Design advice
    • Privacy Compliance and Gap Analysis
    • Algorithmic Impact Assessment
    • Re-identification Risk Assessment
    • Data ethics
    • Privacy Helpdesk
  • Training
    • Overview – Our Training Services
    • Privacy Compliance Training
    • Privacy Professionals Training
    • All Online Modules
    • Training Calendar
    • Public Courses and Workshops
    • In-house Privacy Training and Workshops
    • Webinars
    • IAPP Certifications
    • Training Advisory Services
    • Login
  • Resources
    • Overview – Our Resources
    • THE PRIVACY PULSE
    • Privacy Act Reforms
    • Compliance Kits
    • Resources on key privacy topics
    • Free Handbook
    • Newsletter
    • Login
  • Case Study
  • Blog
  • Calendar
  • Contact
  • Compliance Kits
    • For Business & Non-profits
    • For Peak Bodies
    • For Australian Government
    • For NSW Public Sector
    • For VIC Public Sector
    • For QLD Public Sector
    • For WA Public Sector
    • Login

Free search, free speech, and the Right To Be Forgotten

March 12, 2015, Stephen Wilson

Search engines are wondrous things. I myself use Google search umpteen times a day. I don’t think I could work or play without it anymore. And yet I am a strong supporter of the contentious “Right to be Forgotten”. The “RTBF” is hotly contested, and I am the first to admit it’s a messy business. For one thing, it’s not ideal that Google itself is required for now to adjudicate RTBF requests in Europe. But we have to accept that all of privacy is contestable. The balance of rights to privacy and rights to access information is tricky. RTBF has a long way to go, and I sense that European jurors and regulators are open and honest about this.

One of the starkest RTBF debating points is free speech. Does allowing individuals to have irrelevant, inaccurate and/or outdated search results blocked represent censorship? Is it an assault on free speech? There is surely a technical-legal question about whether the output of an algorithm represents “free speech”, and as far as I can see, that question remains open. Am I the only commentator suprised by this legal blind spot? I have to say that such uncertainty destabilises a great deal of the RTBF dispute.

I am not a lawyer, but I have a strong sense that search outputs are not the sort of thing that constitutes speech. Let’s bear in mind what web search is all about.

Google search is core to its multi-billion dollar advertising business. Search results are not unfiltered replicas of things found in the public domain, but rather the subtle outcome of complex Big Data processes. Google’s proprietary search algorithm is famously secret, but we do know how sensitive it is to context. Most people will have noticed that search results change day by day and from place to place. But why is this?

When we enter search parameters, the result we get is actually Google’s guess about what we are really looking for. Google in effect forms a hypothesis, drawing on much more than the express parameters, including our search history, browsing history, location and so on. And in all likelihood, search is influenced by the many other things Google gleans from the way we use its other properties — gmail, maps, YouTube, hangouts and Google+ — which are all linked now under one master data usage policy.

And here’s the really clever thing about search. Google monitors how well it’s predicting our real or underlying concerns. It uses a range of signals and metrics, to assess what we do with search results, and it continuously refines those processes. This is what Google really gets out of search: deep understanding of what its users are interested in, and how they are likely to respond to targeted advertising. Each search result is a little test of Google’s Artificial Intelligence, which, as some like to say, is getting to know us better than we know ourselves.

As important as they are, it seems to me that search results are really just a by-product of a gigantic information business. They are nothing like free speech.

 

Photograph © Shutterstock

Filed Under: Uncategorized

If you enjoyed this blog, subscribe to our newsletter to receive more privacy insights and news every month.

Privacy Compliance Kits

Recent Posts

  • Privacy law reform: weaving threads for a harmonious whole
  • Tick and flick: what ’I agree’ really means to Australians in 2026
  • Inching towards individuation: OAIC decision on pixels broadens scope of the Privacy Act
  • How dark patterns can land you in hot water: new case offers lessons for all
  • How to sniff out the landmines that can ruin your AI project
  • Privacy reforms to impact over 100,000 small businesses
  • The view from the summit: trust and hope, caution and concern, and plenty of hard work
  • Is identifiability in the eye of the beholder?  EU case tests limits of pseudonymisation
  • Mind the gap: when legal permission is not enough to ensure compliance
  • Why “Don’t worry it’s de-identified” should (still) be a red flag when considering privacy risk

Archive

  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015

Search

Helios Salinger can help you navigate the complexity of the regulatory environment, and ensure the trust of your customers.

CONTACT US

T: 02 9043 2632
Level 37, 180 George Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Email Enquiry

© Helios Salinger Pty Ltd
ACN 655 748 593
ABN 59 655 748 593

Our Privacy Policy

Terms of Engagement

Subscribe to our newsletter.

These details will be added to our mailing list to receive the Helios Salinger eNews and Product News newsletters. You can unsubscribe or adjust your preferences at any time, from the bottom of any newsletter.