The form allows an individual or someone representing an individual to put in a request. The form requires submission of a photo ID of the individual the request is for.
The form then allows people to list one or more URLs they want removed, and they have to provide an explanation about why they want them dropped. In particular, you have to explain why each URL is “irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate,” wording that goes back to the original court ruling about why material can be removed.
Google itself tells Search Engine Land that removals won’t pull a URL out of Google worldwide. Instead, if a removal is approved, the URL will be dropped for searches on the associated name from all the EU-specific versions of Google that the company maintains.
Google tells us that will show disclosure when URLs are removed under the new Right To Be Forgotten method in a manner similar to above. In other words, while the URL itself is forgotten, the fact that Google was made to forget it will be remembered.
Update (2014-06-05): Brian S. Hall:
To make sense of the right-to-be-forgotten issue—including how it potentially impacts Web users—here’s a look at some questions you may have about the European court’s decision.
Update (2014-11-02): Caitlin Dewey:
But because Lazic lives in Europe, where in May the European Union ruled that individuals have a “right to be forgotten” online, he decided to take the griping one step further: On Oct. 30, he sent The Washington Post a request to remove a 2010 review by Post classical music critic Anne Midgette that – he claims — has marred the first page of his Google results for years.
It’s the first request The Post has received under the E.U. ruling. It’s also a truly fascinating, troubling demonstration of how the ruling could work.
Stay up-to-date by subscribing to the Comments RSS Feed for this post.