Support NeoGAF

[Acorn]

Google is manipulating it agnosticly

I'm not saying it should tarnish you. If I ran google I would set something up. I think there should be a way to tackle libel and slander. There's a difference between taking down the information at its source and this censorship of indexing. But when certain things become public they're public. Its a weird, and pardon me for the cliche, orwellian (though I think its apt because of his concept of the unperson) thought that the past should be "corrected"

The reforms should be focused on the injection of the information into the public web rather than this eraser the court wants to set up.

But it isn't libel or slander to report you have been charged with something whether it is false or not.

Someone searching through 25 years of newspapers in a library is a bit different from being able to instantly get the information of the false accusation and the priority of the information given by Google.

 

[The Technomancer]

But it isn't libel or slander to report you have been charged with something whether it is false or not.

Someone searching through 25 years of newspapers in a library is a bit different from being able to instantly get the information of the false accusation and the priority of the information given by Google.

Sure, but if the nature of this ruling was "Google must prioritize legally recognized retractions upon request" I'd have no problem with it, that's narrow enough that I'd be comfortable with it. But there is no retraction here, because the guy did get his home reposessed and even before Google that doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be that difficult to find out about.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But it isn't libel or slander to report you have been charged with something whether it is false or not.

Someone searching through 25 years of newspapers in a library is a bit different from being able to instantly get the information of the false accusation and the priority of the information given by Google.

But you were accused. You can't change that. Are we going to assume that every court decision is sacrosanct and their decision is the gospel for the rest of society? Can't I not say OJ killed his wife? According to the court it was an unproven accusation.

And your second paragraph has no meaningful distinction besides convenience.

I have no problem with laws saying this kind of information can't be indexed but I think the better solution is to engineer the sites and publication of information in such a way its so easily accessible to goggle. For example, I have a traffic citation that's in the courts. Its not on google but I can find it at the court's website.

 

[Acorn]

But you were accused. You can't change that.

And your second paragraph has no meaningful distinction besides convenience.

Second paragraph is in reference to the numerous mentions by others to the library containing the same information.

So its okay that the accusation gets judged as being most relevant by Google with no recourse? Other than hiring a company? What happens to those without the means to push that information down?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Second paragraph is in reference to the numerous mentions by others to the library containing the same information.

So its okay that the accusation gets judged as being most relevant by Google with no recourse? Other than hiring a company? What happens to those without the means to push that information down?

Its public information. Yes, people with less means probably have less ability to present themselves in the best light. I don't think the way to fix that is to institute a censorship regime. Again I think there are better ways to solve this.

 

[syllogism]

That's exactly what publishing does;makes information more conveniently available to a wider audience. It is a very meaningful distinction.

Google indexing sensitive private data creates an easy to access, public index of information that is still sensitive, private and protected. In a sense they are constantly republishing the information.

 

[Partial Gamification]

Such an internal wrestling match of understandings, I'm split.

[question 3:] Regarding the scope of the right of erasure and/or the right to object, in relation to the “derecho al olvido” (the “right to be forgotten”), the following question is asked:

must it be considered that the rights to erasure and blocking of data, provided for in Article 12(b), and the right to object, provided for by [subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14] of Directive 95/46, extend to enabling the data subject to address himself to search engines in order to prevent indexing of the information relating to him personally, published on third parties’ web pages, invoking his wish that such information should not be known to internet users when he considers that it might be prejudicial to him or he wishes it to be consigned to oblivion, even though the information in question has been lawfully published by third parties?’
[...]
It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to Question 3 is that Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...g=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=21856

Its arguably reasonably, arguably able to be abused.

 

[Acorn]

Its public information. Yes, people with less means probably have less ability to present themselves in the best light. I don't think the way to fix that is to institute a censorship regime. Again I think there are better ways to solve this.

Google has been aware of problems like this since its inception and has done nothing.

Anything that forces them to act isn't going to be perfect but it's better than the status quo imo.

 

[Joni]

Its public information. Yes, people with less means probably have less ability to present themselves in the best light. I don't think the way to fix that is to institute a censorship regime. Again I think there are better ways to solve this.

There are bettr ways to solve this, but Google has refused so far to act on those. So now the courts stepped in and the courts are right. If Google doesn't want to do it, thye need to do it. This is a something very important.

 

[poppabk]

I can understand the ruling but they really need to clarify the details. As an example, I Googled one of my neighbours recently looking for a recent news story about them and found out that they had been caught in a prostitution sting involving an undercover cop 20 years ago. I can understand that you might want and have a reasonable case for that not being on the front page of the Google results for your name.

 

[Oersted]

so censorship and manipulation of information.

The examples will always be positive. I think your work is important and I would want the opportunity to correct the record but I don't think forcing Google to present the information you want is the job of the courts. The public has the right to know and its not only going to be people with positive stories who use this.



But your eliminating the ability of the journalist to find out. This is reminds me (nerd alert) of Episode II where they information on Kamino is erased. I just don't see the courts being able to police this well. I think a better solution would be encouraging google to set up a system to tackle these claims themselves (like they do with copyrights)

Google is now the chance for a journalist? Really? Wonder if they will ever catch Sterling.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Sterling should move to Europe.

 

[Of All Trades]

Google is now the chance for a journalist? Really? Wonder if they will ever catch Sterling.

The idea that decreased transparency is preferable is very strange. Why is it a positive that a journalist or other investigative agency be required to expend more resources to uncover important truths?

For example, just because the nsa scoured the Internet doesn't mean that the EPA has access to that same information and can show that New Owner X is actually the nephew of Former Polluter Y and they are playing a shell game to avoid enforcement action. If the EPA now has to use tax records instead of a simple glance through old facebook data then the investigation will likely fail early on.

 

[Oersted]

The idea that decreased transparency is preferable is very strange. Why is it a positive that a journalist or other investigative agency be required to expend more resources to uncover important truths?

For example, just because the nsa scoured the Internet doesn't mean that the EPA has access to that same information and can show that New Owner X is actually the nephew of Former Polluter Y and they are playing a shell game to avoid enforcement action. If the EPA now has to use tax records instead of a simple glance through old facebook data then the investigation will likely fail early on.

That falls under public interest. That always overrules rights. Btw, your example is a laughable strawman.

 

[JonathanEx]

Terrible for free speech, journalism and all that. Relevance is a poor test because it depends what it's relevant for. It's prone to be abused, if the information is true, it's true and we shouldn't hide it. Why is it fine for a newspaper to keep its report online but illegal for Google to link it? Shambles.

If the issue is embarrasment over things said or done in the past - that's not a technology problem surely, it's a society one. That we find it culturally difficult to be honest that yes, people have done dumb things in their past that they may not be proud of. And be a bit less judgemental about that.

 

[Of All Trades]

That falls under public interest. That always overrules rights. Btw, your example is a laughable strawman.

But how is that determined? If the answer is "the courts" then you've created barriers that increase opacity. Do you really think Google is going to carefully consider the request from Johnny White Supremacist to purge old indexes before running for office when they receive a huge influx of requests?

And do you think enforcement agencies don't use publicly available "private" data to help guide investigations?

 

[mavs]

What if I offered a paid service that tapped the non-EU archives where a person could pay a Euro to lookup the "internet history" of the person? Service is contracted in EU but performed outside EU, then results returned to EU.

I don't know it seems like there will be a clear disadvantage in both (public) information access and having the resources to actually follow through with a take down request if it is not honored.

They'd probably call that illegal too, but you've hit upon the reason for this ruling. Google is providing a similar service for free, even though they get no benefit out of providing it, because it's not worth it to them to make sure they aren't giving access to that information. The court stepped in and said this unwelcome side effect of Google's business should end.

 

[tfur]

Terrible for free speech, journalism and all that. Relevance is a poor test because it depends what it's relevant for. It's prone to be abused, if the information is true, it's true and we shouldn't hide it. Why is it fine for a newspaper to keep its report online but illegal for Google to link it? Shambles.

If the issue is embarrasment over things said or done in the past - that's not a technology problem surely, it's a society one. That we find it culturally difficult to be honest that yes, people have done dumb things in their past that they may not be proud of. And be a bit less judgemental about that.

I don't like it either. I consider this censorship.

The "right to be forgotten?" Really?

I wonder where this puts racists, sex offender lists, public crime listings, cop crimes etc. I am sure the incorporation of some group that represents a person will be right around the corner to censor at will. Probably even censor services could follow.

If you do not want something on the internet, go to the source where is exists.

This is like asking for paved roads to suddenly be removed from certain destinations. It's backwards.

Edit: Also, does this include public library card catalog/index look-ups etc?

 

[Cat Party]

I can't believe people support this. Enjoy having a shittier, censored version of Google. Every time you Google someone, you get to question whether they've scrubbed the results. Have fun.

 

[Joni]

I don't like it either. I consider this censorship.

The "right to be forgotten?" Really?

I wonder where this puts racists, sex offender lists, public crime listings, cop crimes etc. I am sure the incorporation of some group that represents a person will be right around the corner to censor at will. Probably even censor services could follow.

If you do not want something on the internet, go to the source where is exists.

This is like asking for paved roads to suddenly be removed from certain destinations. It's backwards.

Edit: Also, does this include public library card catalog/index look-ups etc?

So you think Google has the right to tell people what is the most important they should know about you. Like the case that actually prompted the decision where a public sale of property is the first thing you learn about a man. Google isn't some impartial catalogue that lists everything. It tells you what is most important. If it is a joyriding accusation that proved false for a noble prize winner, Google can say the joyriding accusation is more important because of their algorhytms. Permanent sex offender listings and stuff are also illegal in Europe because of the European Convention of Human Rights so listings like that should already be hidden because they're already illegal.

 

[tfur]

So you think Google has the right to tell people what is the most important they should know about you. Like the case that actually prompted the decision where a public sale of property is the first thing you learn about a man.

Google did not tell people anything.

Google crawled the web and found public web sites. It found a match an listed it. You could download and compile your own web crawler to do the same.

Could I not go into a library and get this information? Will that now be subject to censor as well?

Edit: Do you have a reference for the illegality of sex offender listings in Europe? That is hard to believe.

 

[Joni]

Google did not tell people anything.

Google crawled the web and found public web sites. It found a match an listed it. You could download and compile your own web crawler to do the same.

Could I not go into a library and get this information? Will that now be subject to censor as well?

Yes, it does. It ranks page based on the importance they give to it. A library and other sources would use more objective rankings like chronology and alphabet.

Edit: Do you have a reference for the illegality of sex offender listings in Europe? That is hard to believe.

"Two convicted sex offenders have won a ruling that being put on the sex offenders register with no chance of review breaches their human rights."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7792497.stm

 

[poppabk]

I can't believe people support this. Enjoy having a shittier, censored version of Google. Every time you Google someone, you get to question whether they've scrubbed the results. Have fun.

People are already able to game Google's search algorithm, in fact it's a billion dollar industry with its own acronym and everything. Do you question every search you ever do?

 

[tfur]

Yes, it does. It ranks page based on the importance they give to it. A library and other sources would use more objective rankings like chronology and alphabet.

So, now we have to make a judgement/interpretation on the level of importance, vs how we look something up in a library? Importance is not what is being listed, it is what has been found. Did this guys have more better information on the internet about him that was ignored? Or was this just what was found, assumed to be most accurate, since it is part of a legal information posting..?

"Two convicted sex offenders have won a ruling that being put on the sex offenders register with no chance of review breaches their human rights."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7792497.stm

I am going to assume "with no change of review" was the sticky part.


http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights-law-truth-and-illusion

3) "Human rights laws will prevent rapists and
paedophiles from
registering their details on the sex offenders register"



There is nothing
in the Human Rights Act or the European Convention of Human Rights that
prevents convicted sex offenders from being required to register on the sex
offenders register. The right to privacy can be limited if it is
necessary and proportionate to protect public safety.



The courts have
held that registration on the sex offenders register does not breach human
rights law. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the requirement to
provide information to the police for inclusion on the sex offenders register
is proportionate given the gravity of the harm which may be caused to the
victims of sexual offences if an offender were to reoffend.



Our Supreme
Court has held that while life-long registration on the register can be
justified, there should be a mechanism to provide simply for a review of the
requirement to remain on the register long-term. A review would consider an
individual’s circumstances and may well lead to a decision to continue to
require registration.

 

[Joni]

am going to assume "with no change of review" was the sticky part.

That is why I said "Permanent sex offender listings". And it is what you disagree with because you're against this topic. The entire idea of being punished for a crime is that the punishment is the punishment.

 

[tfur]

That is why I said "Permanent sex offender listings". And it is what you disagree with because you're against this topic. The entire idea of being punished for a crime is that the punishment is the punishment.

Well, you said it was illegal. It clearly is not, as long as reviews deem it necessary to stay on the list.
This is why I posed the link.

I don't really understand what "against this topic" means, but this decision is backwards and is censorship in my opinion.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Good to know we can get stuff out of our records. This will be especially relevant once the current kids grow up and look back at what sort of idiots they were on the internet.

precisely.

large universities already provide courses on how to maintain a digital footprint. Having the legal right to not have your dirty laundry out in the open for everyone is a very good thing.

 

[Joni]

Well, you said it was illegal. It clearly is not, as long as reviews deem it necessary to stay on the list.
This is why I posed the link.

I don't really understand what "against this topic" means, but this decision is backwards and is censorship in my opinion.

Permanent sex offender listings are illegal. If you can get reviewed off the list, it is not permanent. But you support a system where for instance someone is no longer on the list because a court decided it was no longer relevant - because for instance he is no longer a 16-year old sleeping with his 15-year old GF - but it would still be listed on Google because otherwise it would be censorship.

 

[railGUN]

Fuck people, don't you understand? The Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.

 

[tfur]

Permanent sex offender listings are illegal. If you can get reviewed off the list, it is not permanent. But you support a system where for instance someone is no longer on the list because a court decided it was no longer relevant - because for instance he is no longer a 16-year old sleeping with his 15-year old GF - but it would still be listed on Google because otherwise it would be censorship.

Wrong. Unless this information this human right UK site is wrong?

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights-law-truth-and-illusion

Our Supreme Court has held that while life-long registration on the register can be justified, there should be a mechanism to provide simply for a review of the
requirement to remain on the register long-term. A review would consider an individual’s circumstances and may well lead to a decision to continue to require registration.

As, long as there is a review, you could legally be listed till your death("life long"). Not sure what happens after.

Again, Google is linking to links to web sites. If is no longer on the web site, it will not be indexed and you will not be able to go to the web site that has the information.

This judgement is stupid because it goes after the wrong people. They are yelling at the internet, when it is really a matter for who is serving the information.

 

[Joni]

As, long as there is a review, you could legally be listed till your death("life long"). Not sure what happens after.

You can get reviewed off so it is not permanent. You can be on there for life if necessary, but you can get off the list if it not necessary anymore. You do understand the difference between that and a list you will never be removed from?

Again, Google is linking to links to web sites. If is no longer on the web site, it will not be indexed and you will not be able to go to the web site that has the information.

Only deleting something from a website doesn't guarantee immediate removal from Google.

 

[tfur]

You can get reviewed off so it is not permanent. You can be on there for life if necessary, but you can get off the list if it not necessary anymore. You do understand the difference between that and a list you will never be removed from?


Only deleting something from a website doesn't guarantee immediate removal from Google.

Yes I understand, and you are splitting hairs about this. Someone can be on it for life if deemed necessary. You said this:

Permanent sex offender listings and stuff are also illegal in Europe because of the European Convention of Human Rights so listings like that should already be hidden because they're already illegal.

This is a far cry from what I found a link to. You want to split hairs on "life long" vs "permanent". So again, no NOT illegal and not hidden. No such provision exists according to the European Convention of Human Rights. According to: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights-law-truth-and-illusion

Our Supreme Court has held that while life-long registration on the register can be justified, there should be a mechanism to provide simply for a review of the requirement to remain on the register long-term. A review would consider an individual’s circumstances and may well lead to a decision to continue to require registration.

Also, the link to the actual content does not matter. If the actual server is no longer serving it, it is dead. I guess they could address the google cache content time outs after that, but the link is dead as soon as the server serving the data removes the information.

 

[Cipherr]

I look forward to reading the rest of this thread, because absolutely nothing about this ruling and the arguments in its defense make sense. This is a dangerous ruling.

After reading it, it seems to be made in the pursuit of something good for consumers, but the ruling itself seems... rather unspecific? weird and a little broad. I mean what in the hell...

precisely.

large universities already provide courses on how to maintain a digital footprint. Having the legal right to not have your dirty laundry out in the open for everyone is a very good thing.

A very worthy cause. But its unlikely to happen before all of us are long dead and gone. Unless the EU can police the entire internet everywhere in the world, we will always be able to find peoples naked dick pics, and blackface halloween costume parties somewhere out there.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

There's a vicious trend of people airing public info and performing SEO on those pages so it has a good chance of floating to the top of the search results for that person and then blackmail them to remove the info. I'm talking about things like mugshot data bases (anyone arrested, so guilty/not guilty doesn't factor into the equation) and bankruptcy filings. I don't know if this ruling would make it harder for those "businesses" to operate, but it's partially why I'm generally for a right to be forgotten even though it's an ambiguous issue.

 

[tfur]

The exposure of dirty truths is preferable than deleting parts of history. The harms outweigh any goods in my opinion.

The "right to be forgotten" is a complete mind fuck. Who is the arbiter of relevant or irrelevant information? Who blesses what is okay or not? Will every link need to be interpreted for its acceptable relevance.

What if I publish a book, with history of a certain person who wants to be forgotten? What if I have a news site with wiikileaks like information?

What gives you the right to tell me what I have to forget? This shit is shameful philosophically.

I understand that people want to erase things, but we cannot selectively pick and choose relevant history.

 

[SRG01]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, this is equivalent to a DMCA takedown, but for personal information? Where is the problem in this?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So, if I'm reading this correctly, this is equivalent to a DMCA takedown, but for personal information? Where is the problem in this?

You're not. This isn't taking down copyrighted information.

 

[poppabk]

The exposure of dirty truths is preferable than deleting parts of history. The harms outweigh any goods in my opinion.

The "right to be forgotten" is a complete mind fuck. Who is the arbiter of relevant or irrelevant information? Who blesses what is okay or not? Will every link need to be interpreted for its acceptable relevance.

What if I publish a book, with history of a certain person who wants to be forgotten? What if I have a news site with wiikileaks like information?

What gives you the right to tell me what I have to forget? This shit is shameful philosophically.

I understand that people want to erase things, but we cannot selectively pick and choose relevant history.

No-one is deleting anything other than an index in a computer generated database. That's the whole point. The information will still exist, it will still be indexed under other key words and you will still be able to find it, just not using a casual search with someone's name. Provided they make a valid request, enough time has passed, and there is no overriding public interest. The devil will be in the details, but the idea is not ridiculous.

 

[SimleuqiR]

 

[Cat Party]

No-one is deleting anything other than an index in a computer generated database. That's the whole point. The information will still exist, it will still be indexed under other key words and you will still be able to find it, just not using a casual search with someone's name. Provided they make a valid request, enough time has passed, and there is no overriding public interest. The devil will be in the details, but the idea is not ridiculous.

"Valid," "enough," overriding."

Who gets to determine what those words mean in the context of each request?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"Valid," "enough," overriding."

Who gets to determine what those words mean in the context of each request?

Ingsoc

 

[syllogism]

After reading it, it seems to be made in the pursuit of something good for consumers, but the ruling itself seems... rather unspecific? weird and a little broad. I mean what in the hell...

The ruling is very specific as it applies only in the circumstances of the case. It does not formulate any 'right to be forgotten' and does not grant a broad right to tell Google to remove results from their index. It's also worth noting, that if Google does remove a result, it is very likely that the result will not just mysteriously disappear, but there will be a text indicating that it was removed due to a complaint. Something like:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Therefore even if Google takes down results, news agencies can contact them or the court to see what exactly was removed.

 

[Joni]

Yes I understand, and you are splitting hairs about this. Someone can be on it for life if deemed necessary.

Which is very different from everyone being on the list permanently without a way to get off., which is what Google is doing.

 

[tfur]

Also, what if I have the same name, and I do not want to be censored from a search engine?
Will there now be a need to peruse data and separate out who and what is to be allowed and not allowed?

Lots of good points of view on the censorship issue, and restriction of information.

Google ruling 'astonishing', says Wikipedia founder Wales
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27407017

Mr Wales said it was "one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I've ever seen".

Are search engines the ultimate arbiters of information?
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2014/05/cjeu-closing-open-web/

A search engine is not a publisher and it neither owns nor stores the web pages containing information relating to a person, especially when this information emanates from public records. The court’s ruling sets different standards between search engines, which are intermediaries, and publishers, who produce the content and are responsible for making the information public. In this particular case, it will mean there is a difference between searching what is publicly available in the newspaper archives in a local library and what is publicly available on the internet.

This ruling is backwards and regressive. It tries to tie the hands of the evolution of technology instead of going to the source.

““This is worrying news because the right to be forgotten can quickly morph into the right to polish one’s public image, using privacy rights as an excuse. The public also has rights, and access to public information about citizens is one of those,”” says Turkish journalist Kaya Genc. ““In the age of social media, it is very difficult to tell who is a public figure – our lives are all public now and the sooner we accept this, the better.””

In the end, the ruling leaves more questions than it answers: Who decides what’s “relevant”? Which person gets to hide access to which information? What stories will be made to “disappear”? When does a story become out of date? Could US citizens search for information about EU citizens on search engines that EU citizens would not be able to see?

And how long before this article is inaccessible because someone mentioned in it wants to hide it from public view?

The last sentence is a little hyperbolic, but conceivably, if a person was cited in this article, it could be subject "right to be forgotten" and deemed "irrelevant."

 

[tfur]

Which is very different from everyone being on the list permanently without a way to get off., which is what Google is doing.

No, I do not believe Google is permanently adding sex offenders to sex offenders lists.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Great going EU, Google has already had requests from a politician and a convicted paedophile to have links removed.

Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results, the BBC has learned.

An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped.

And a doctor wants negative reviews from patients removed from the results.

I hope these requests are turned down.

 

[Joni]

Great going EU, Google has already had requests from a politician and a convicted paedophile to have links removed.

It is shoddy journalism, it is so shoddy it is embarrassing if someone at BBC thought this was good journalism. It is leaking information to discredit the European decision without mentionning if the people have actual merit in their requests. I had hoped the BBC was above such sensationalism. This 'journalism' piece has no actual value. It is a free country, everybody has the right to make such requests. You could post something similiar for any parole law. 'Murderer requests parole' for instance to make it look like the entire concept of parole laws is bad. It is something you'd expect FOX to do after the Democrats vote a new controversial law.

 

[thefunkyman]

The BBC has learned that more than half of requests sent to Google from UK individuals involved convicted criminals. A business has also sought for links to negative reviews on a forum to be removed.

On Thursday it emerged an ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images had also requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped. More requests came to light on Friday. According to BBC, they included:

* A man who tried to kill members of his own family who has asked for links to a news article to be taken down

* A celebrity's child who wanted links to news articles about a criminal conviction removed

* A suspended university lecturer who asked for the removal of links to articles mentioning the disciplinary action

* A convicted cyberstalker who, after being cited in an article about cyberstalking law, wants links to it taken down

* An actor who has asked for links to articles about an affair he had with a teenager taken down

* A man convicted of running a tax scam who wants all links referencing the event removed

However, the EU has defended the move, saying that in cases where the public interest case is more pressing than the individual's privacy rights, links should not be taken down.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_...rcing-Google-to-delete-undesirable-data-7841/

Oh dear. I guess this is a double-edged sword.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

It is shoddy journalism, it is so shoddy it is embarrassing if someone at BBC thought this was good journalism. It is leaking information to discredit the European decision without mentionning if the people have actual merit in their requests. I had hoped the BBC was above such sensationalism. This 'journalism' piece has no actual value. It is a free country, everybody has the right to make such requests. You could post something similiar for any parole law. 'Murderer requests parole' for instance to make it look like the entire concept of parole laws is bad. It is something you'd expect FOX to do after the Democrats vote a new controversial law.

Why do you say it has no value? I find it highly valuable to know a politician wants to remove info about what he did in office via this new ruling. It directly speaks to why this ruling can be misinterpreted. Don't EU publications have rules from just putting anyone's name on this?

 

[Maninthemirror]

Will this allow a person who harrassed a child to ask Google to remove a news entry because he was set free and thus that news is not relative anymore 20 years later?


Will this news allow corporations to delete small news entry which the company deems irrelevant from 10 years ago about them but suddenly becomes relative concerning a decision they make tommorow?