Support NeoGAF

[llien]

My understanding is that they managed to force google hide certain results about mentioned surgeon.
"I fucked up, but it's ok, google, remove all traces of it!"
"Landmark" indeed.
And it doesn't seem like doctor's lawyer understands how internet works:

A Dutch surgeon formally disciplined for medical negligence has won a legal action to remove Google search results about her case in a landmark "right to be forgotten" ruling. The doctor's registration on the register of healthcare professionals was initially suspended by a disciplinary panel because of postoperative care of a patient. After an appeal, this was changed to a conditional suspension under which doctor was allowed to continue to practice. But the first results after entering the doctor's name in Google continued to be links to a website containing an unofficial blacklist, which it was claimed amounted to "digital pillory." It was heard that potential patients had found the blacklist on Google and discussed the case on a web forum. The surgeon's lawyer, Willem van Lynden, said the ruling was groundbreaking in ensuring doctors would no longer be judged by Google on their fitness to practice."Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said.

The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings.

The court further rejected Google’s claim that most people would have difficulty in finding the relevant information on the medical board’s Big-register, where the records are publicly held.

(source link is in the text, Guardian)

 

[jufonuk]

No way will any government abuse this ruling ....

 

[Cunth]

Good. I’ll erase all traces of this account when I get famous

 

[slugbahr]

Good. I’ll erase all traces of this account when I get famous

You're already a famous cunt(h)

 

[Lanrutcon]

I'm confused.

But isn't the surgeon's name now going to be associated with this landmark case instead of the suspension case in search results? By winning this you've effectively negated the goal of the case. Or I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Chairman Tickles]

I'm confused.

But isn't the surgeon's name now going to be associated with this landmark case instead of the suspension case in search results? By winning this you've effectively negated the goal of the case. Or I'm misunderstanding.

I assume she can now use her past failures as a legal weapon, if anybody discriminates against her based on her prior actions.
This ruling is ridiculous.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Good. I’ll erase all traces of this account

when I get famous

 

[Fbh]

So her right to have her past fuckup erased is more important than the right of potential patients to get information about the person that's going to cut them open.... nice

 

[tkscz]

So her right to have her past fuckup erased is more important than the right of potential patients to get information about the person that's going to cut them open.... nice

But but, it's only a conditional suspension now, she can operate again perfectly /s

Yeah, even though they allowed her to operate, patients should still be allowed to know what she has done in the past.

 

[SKM1]

I agree with the ruling. The opinion of anonymous folk on the internet should not supersede that of the disciplinary panel. With the way information propagates on the Internet, most exposure will be given to those sites which promote controversy.

If you are not okay with the first results of a search of your name on google being a list of you past fuckups, which have been dealt with, then please enlighten me as to why you would treat this case.