'Right to be forgotten' comes to Bing, as Microsoft launches request form

Last week, Microsoft confirmed that it would soon launch a form to help process 'right to be forgotten' requests in Europe, following a ruling by the European Union Court of Justice in May. 

That ruling established the right for individuals to be able to request that search engines remove certain results about them, if considered 'irrelevant' or 'outdated' in some way. Google launched a form to help users to submit these requests at the end of May, and began removing results earlier this month, but it has taken longer for Microsoft to catch up.

As Reuters reports, Microsoft's request form is now available, and requests information in four sections from those seeking to get specific search results removed. The company says that it will consider not just the details that individuals submit, but also "other sources of information... to verify or supplement the information you provide."

It adds: "This information will help us to consider the balance between your individual privacy interest and the public interest in protecting free expression and the free availability of information, consistent with European law." As with Google, Microsoft says that submitting a request does not guarantee that it will be approved. 

If approved, the relevant results will be removed from Bing search engine results in Europe, but will continue to be available for those that search outside of the EU. 

Source: Reuters / Bing request form

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to close Xbox Entertainment Studios, killing its plans for original TV shows

Next Story

This is how Microsoft let us know that Cortana has arrived in the US

23 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This right to be forgotten thing is bone headed!
The source should be amended not the search engine results played with. This pretty much breaks the internet.

derekaw said,
This right to be forgotten thing is bone headed!
The source should be amended not the search engine results played with. This pretty much breaks the internet.

Exactly. Search engines just crawl and index web pages. Take legal action against the source of the data, not the company who indexes it.

rfirth said,

Exactly. Search engines just crawl and index web pages. Take legal action against the source of the data, not the company who indexes it.

This makes too much sense for the jobless, pitchfork wielding, everything-hating millennial EU drones.

My dear Redmond Corporation, where's right to use Outlook.com without being asked for phone number? They take as hostage web access to my older @msn.com account (it still works via desktop client of course, but I'm travelling and I don't own laptop) and until I provide phone number everything is blocked for sake of distorted concept of security.

I am not dull, I have strong password, I don't need any additional protection showed down my throat - such two-factor feature should be optional.

insanelyapple said,
until I provide phone number everything is blocked for sake of distorted concept of security.

I don't think you quite understand why they are making you provide a phone number. It's not for your benefit. It's not for anything like two-factor authentication.

It's for spam. Spammers setup throwaway email accounts to sent spam from. They want a phone number associated with the account, and a text message to prove ownership, to reduce the number of accounts created to send spam. You can't create thousands of accounts to send spam with only 1 phone number, because if you did and you got caught sending spam, they'd all be disabled.

InsanelyApple, how does this have anything to do with the article? Your MSN account is giving you security. You do not need to put a phone number, I have mine set to email the security code. Please rant on the forums.

As I seem to recall, this article is on Bing.

I don't accept such excuses - this is poorly done and should be changed. Thank you for brief explanation anyway - google was showing me anything about such case so I assumed that's two-factor.

His points completely irrelevant to the article but very true.
Recently been unable to sign onto an old hotmail account until I've confirmed the account is mine by having an email confirmation sent to another hotmail account... This was for an elderly family member that was completely bewildered and confused.
Switched them to gmail; lo and behold no such problems, can get access to email without any stupid problems blocking access to legimate users with long unwanted verification steps.

My dear Redmond Corporation, where's right to use Outlook.com without being asked for phone number? They take as hostage web access to my older @msn.com account (it still works via desktop client of course, but I'm travelling and I don't own laptop) and until I provide phone number everything is blocked for sake of distorted concept of security.

I am not dull, I have strong password, I don't need any additional protection showed down my throat - such two-factor feature should be optional.


Um since when do you have to give them a phone number? I've used outlook.com since day 1 and I have never ever given my phone number.

It just asks you to give EITHER a phone or an alternate email. I gave them an alternate email, and voila problem solved.

Switched them to gmail; lo and behold no such problems, can get access to email without any stupid problems blocking access to legimate users with long unwanted verification steps.

Gmail will do exactly the same thing if they think your sign on is a bit suspicious.

Once you confirm it once it should not ask you again (for both gmail and outlook) unless you clear out your cache and changing your IP every second.

Microsoft copied Google!!!.../s

Anyway,will just be like Google where other countries, the results will still be there. So really dont see the big deal.

Edited by techbeck, Jul 17 2014, 7:51pm :

Exclamation mark is for sarcasm so perhaps you don't need the geeky /s there.

Anyhow, I hope right to be forgotten will be implemented worldwide because we really do need it.

In some cases, yes, but it will be abused, just like it already has been with Google. Not to mention it removes some legitimate info.

AtriusNY said,
Exclamation mark is for sarcasm so perhaps you don't need the geeky /s there.

Anyhow, I hope right to be forgotten will be implemented worldwide because we really do need it.

Censorship is never a good thing, ever

AtriusNY said,
Exclamation mark is for sarcasm so perhaps you don't need the geeky /s there.

Anyhow, I hope right to be forgotten will be implemented worldwide because we really do need it.

Why do we need it? Why do public records need to be "forgotten" as if they never happened?

Scabrat said,

Why do we need it? Why do public records need to be "forgotten" as if they never happened?

There are a number of laws implemented in EU member states under EU directives which make things appear as if they never happened, largely due them being irrelevant.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK allows people to say "No" to the question often asked by employers "Have you ever been convicted" after IIRC 2 years (there are some exceptions and certain crimes don't fall under this.)

The increased availability of information and the ease with which it can be gathered make a mockery of this, by allowing people to be "forgotten" it helps to swing the pendulum back (at least a little) to judging people on their recent conduct, not something that they stupidly did 10 years ago.

boo_star said,

There are a number of laws implemented in EU member states under EU directives which make things appear as if they never happened, largely due them being irrelevant.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act in the UK allows people to say "No" to the question often asked by employers "Have you ever been convicted" after IIRC 2 years (there are some exceptions and certain crimes don't fall under this.)

The increased availability of information and the ease with which it can be gathered make a mockery of this, by allowing people to be "forgotten" it helps to swing the pendulum back (at least a little) to judging people on their recent conduct, not something that they stupidly did 10 years ago.

I understand not judging people on what they did 10 years ago, however, rewriting the past is then lying. The truth is, they did do it. The truth is also, employers would be stupid to hold it against them for 10 years as well. But how is censoring the truth ever been a good idea?

Also, why didnt they just make the question better instead of legalizing lying? "In the last two years, have you ever been convicted of (x offense)?"

Anyways, I still find it ridiculous that public record needs to be unsearchable after x years. Its crazy to me... But this law doesnt affect me much as of right now...

What you consider public record may not be public record somewhere else in the world. And this is not about censorship but all about privacy.

As mentioned in another comment, let me give you this example for instance, even when someone is convicted in Netherlands neither the name of that person nor their picture are distributed by the press (unless of course if it is a high profile issue that has political links). The idea behind is that when that person serves their time they can have a chance to have a decent life again. Prison system is not seen as only a punishment system but also a system where individuals can get training.

In the US however since this is all public information you have to make a career out of criminality once you end up in prison.

AtriusNY said,
What you consider public record may not be public record somewhere else in the world. And this is not about censorship but all about privacy.

As mentioned in another comment, let me give you this example for instance, even when someone is convicted in Netherlands neither the name of that person nor their picture are distributed by the press (unless of course if it is a high profile issue that has political links). The idea behind is that when that person serves their time they can have a chance to have a decent life again. Prison system is not seen as only a punishment system but also a system where individuals can get training.

In the US however since this is all public information you have to make a career out of criminality once you end up in prison.

If it isn't in the press how is it referenced online? The right to be forgotten came about from an old reference to a news paper article.