This post does not contain hateful or abusive content. I am reporting a data‑protection issue because Google Search displays my personal data to others. I have the right to describe how my own personal data is being processed. Removing such a report as “offensive” is unjustified
The AI overview does not merely display public information; it automatically analyzes,
interprets, summarizes, and cross‑links personal data about me, thereby generating new
personal data. This constitutes an independent data‑processing operation under the GDPR,
for which Google has no legal basis. Public availability of data does not authorize
automated analysis, profiling, or inference.
Under GDPR Article 4(2) — official EU source:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj#d1e1888-1-1 — “processing” means any
operation performed on personal data, automated or not, including collection, recording,
organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use,
disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or
combination, restriction, erasure, or destruction. Automated analysis, interpretation,
summarization, linking, or generating new information from personal data also qualifies as
processing, even if the original data was publicly available. Displaying information is not
the same as processing it; automated analysis and inference always require a valid legal
basis.
The system repeatedly performs:
-- Cross‑platform identity aggregation
– Automatic linking of usernames to real‑world identity
– Compilation of activity from unrelated forums
– Presentation of these inferences as factual statements
– No consent, no opt‑out, no transparency
This is not a hallucination.
It is a reproducible pattern across multiple queries.
This raises several issues:
- Unauthorized personal data processing
- Profiling without consent
- Cross‑platform identity correlation
- Opaque data sources and inference mechanisms
- No mechanism to request correction or deletion
- No transparency regarding how identity inferences are generated
This is a systemic integrity and data‑protection problem, not an isolated output.
I request clarification on:
-- Why the system links usernames to real identities
– What data sources are used for these inferences
– Whether this behavior is intentional or emergent
– How users can request removal of unauthorized identity associations
– How this complies with GDPR Articles 5, 6, 12, 14, and 22
This constitutes a data‑protection incident requiring a mandatory, human and substantive
response from the Google AI team.
This post does not contain hateful or abusive content. I am reporting a personal‑data misuse issue, and the attached video is evidence. The video shows Google removing my previous report, the DPC notification, and the reuploaded post. This is factual documentation of how my personal data is being handled, and it is not a violation of any community guideline.
Corrected AI Summary this post
This is the corrected AI summary for this post.
It accurately describes the issue as personal‑data misuse, not “offensive content.”
Bitu79 reports a case of personal data misuse by Google Search’s AI Overview.
They document that the AI processes, analyzes, and publicly displays their personal data without consent, without a legal basis, and without any opt‑out mechanism, which constitutes unlawful personal‑data processing under GDPR.
The system links usernames to real identities, aggregates activity across platforms, and generates new personal data about the user.
Bitu79 provides video evidence showing Google deleting their previous report and the DPC notification.
This is a reproducible data‑protection incident requiring a mandatory human response.
I have also contacted the Hagens Berman legal team (tipline@hbsslaw.com) because Google is arbitrarily removing evidence and suppressing my reports.
All of my documented posts can be found here:
-- Deletion contradictions:
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/statement-on-the-contradiction-between-google-s-deletion-promises-and-the-actual-technical-behavior-of-the-gemini-system/143831
-- Video proof of ghost sessions:
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/deleted-chats-in-google-ai-studio-remain-fully-accessible-and-functional-for-32-days-video-proof-no-actual-deletion-happening/143400
-- Cross‑tenant data exposure:
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/cross-tenant-data-exposure-in-google-ai-studio-deleted-prompt-persisted-re-indexed-and-replicated-into-a-different-account/144227
-- Forced AI integration in Search:
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/google-s-experimental-ai-claim-is-false-search-has-been-ai-integrated-for-years/144798
-- Ignored GDPR requests:
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/evidence-of-google-ai-studio-data-retention-and-deletion-failure-gdpr-relevant-do-not-remove/144368
Current post (Google Search personal‑data issue):
https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/issue-with-how-google-search-displays-my-personal-data/145329
Hagens Berman legal team (tipline@hbsslaw.com) Internet Archive backup:
