Support NeoGAF

[andthebeatgoeson]

So do some people here support a world where you are effectively constantly held hostage by the threat of information on anything you do, or have done, ending up in a permanent record that is freely and easily accessible by anyone without you being able to do anything about it?

Why would we have to support that in order to see the hypocrisy of blaming google? No one seems intent on removing the information from newspapers. The info is freely available and Google innovates. It calls into question whether the EU is favoring a specific industry. The public has unanimously decided to use Google instead of libraries yet this decision favors the unpopular pick. If newspapers weren't so dead and not a competitive threat, I think some would be worried about the favoritism.

As for your last line, there is still a permanent record freely and questionably easily accessible. The introduction of Google did not signify the start of politicians to doing extensive research against their opponents. It can still happen.

As for the threat, I am curious what the threat is? Edit: I see some. That's legit (drunk pictures seen by a potential boss). I just think that Google gets the blame without taking the picture. Weird. Blamed for doing their job too well.

 

[Joni]

Well I think your missing a lot of the exceptions and text of those restrictions and how they would apply.

You would be drunk and unable to give consent, so the pictures itself would be illegal.

And secondly I think the EU is pretty bad when it comes to freedom of expression a lot of the times. I understand their history and trepidation when it comes to privacy but I think they've moved far to much in the way of censorship.

For the European Union, the right to personal privacy is above the right for freedom of speech that simple. And we're also a lot more honest about our laws on freedom of speech. The European Union already includes all expections while the US one for instance can be amended to those same limitations.

 

[tfur]

Like records that are published or processed by a controller that has no right to publish them, like Google does with their cache.

Of course they have a right.
It is this ruling we are discussing that is looking to allow for censorship of requested links. By default the information is open. You have to request for removals.

 

[Joni]

Of course they have a right.
It is this ruling we are discussing that is looking to allow for censorship of requested links. By default the information is open. You have to request for removals.

They don't have the right. The ruling states the directive applies to them. The information is open by default, but it didn't have the right to be open. It just works like Google StreetView. They have taken stuff that is private in nature, and the European courts decided people retain the rights to remove that information.

The Court observes in this regard that, inasmuch as the activity of a search engine is additional to that of publishers of websites and is liable to affect significantly the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, the operator of the search engine must ensure, within the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities, that its activity complies with the directive’s requirements.

Most people should really read that PDF document a couple of times.

 

[phisheep]

I actually brought this up with some mods about 12-18 months ago, in preparation for this outcome. We don't have a 100% obvious answer to this and only EviLore can give any final policy answer but personally I'm generally willing to work with a sincere and non-abusive account deletion request if I get one; with the restriction that we don't remove remnants of people's posts that are quoted by others and we don't have the resources to pinpoint accuracy anything so it's gotta be all or nothing.

I think GAF can be free from worry owing to the ToS - granted right to republish and so on. The same will go I imagine for Facebook and Twitter and anywhere else that people post on voluntarily. Might be a bit of a grey area from before the new ToS kicked in (what was that, 2/3 years ago?) but in the main it seems the target area for this ruling is largely NOT what people have themselves posted.

The greatest risk is, I think, to Google via Wikipedia (or indeed any other source where the base data is being continually changed) and to Wikipedia itself (through the referencing system).

On the broader front I am in two minds about this ruling.

In general I'm sort of with the court, that the protection of individual rights is important and that this is sort of a sensible way of going about it (though maybe not thought through all the way).

But I am greatly worried about the consequences, among them:

- this massively increases the startup and running (legal, editorial and insurance) costs of new entrants into the search/index market, reduces competition and favours incumbents

- it massively increases (contrary to the aims of the judgment) the risk that the skeletons in peoples' closets will be unearthed and published. That's because every search provider will, because of this judgment, have to keep a list in some form or another of what's to be not accessible - which is a list of all the skeletons in all the closets. It will not take many years for such a list to be worth paying megabucks for. That prospect should scare people much more that the current search engines.

- Take-down requests should have judicial oversight (otherwise you're asking private companies to be quasi-judicial), and that's expensive, and even then there's a huge risk that for example corrupt politicians, paedophile TV stars and pension-raiding newspaper owners (to mention no names) will use this ruling as leverage in the same way as they used the much-maligned UK libel laws.

There's some water to go under the bridge on this yet. I hope.

 

[tfur]

They don't have the right. The ruling states the directive applies to them. The information is open by default, but it didn't have the right to be open. It just works like Google StreetView. They have taken stuff that is private in nature, and the European courts decided people retain the rights to remove that information.



Most people should really read that PDF document a couple of times.

They did have the right. The ruling is what the hell we are going on about. They had it yesterday, now not today. You know, the reason freedom groups are upset at the whole arbitrary "irrelevance" thing.

It sounds like you want do make search engines illegal by default.

Personally, I am never going to agree to any of this. It's far too right wing and regressive/oppressive to me.

 

[Syriel]

- it massively increases (contrary to the aims of the judgment) the risk that the skeletons in peoples' closets will be unearthed and published. That's because every search provider will, because of this judgment, have to keep a list in some form or another of what's to be not accessible - which is a list of all the skeletons in all the closets. It will not take many years for such a list to be worth paying megabucks for. That prospect should scare people much more that the current search engines.

This is the bit the EU court missed.

That court basically mandated that a "private record" of banned items be created.

At some point, someone is going to get denied a removal. Or there will be another lawsuit regarding something that shouldn't have been removed.

Either way, discovery rules (at least if the lawsuit happens in a US court) means that "private record" can find its way into the "public record." And under US court rules, unless something is sealed by a court, anything said or done in active court on the record is 100% public.

Give it a few years and it'll be out with the Streisand effect in full force.

And the headlines will be akin to:
THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE DIDN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!!!

 

[Joni]

Either way, discovery rules (at least if the lawsuit happens in a US court) means that "private record" can find its way into the "public record." And under US court rules, unless something is sealed by a court, anything said or done in active court on the record is 100% public.!

European privacy laws come into effect again, even when dealing with US courts. http://www.freshfields.com/en/knowl...idepost_for_the_Practitioner/?LanguageId=2057

They did have the right. The ruling is what the hell we are going on about. They had it yesterday, now not today. You know, the reason freedom groups are upset at the whole arbitrary "irrelevance" thing.

The law to privacy isn't new. It has always been there. That is the entire point of the ruling. It is saying, "Google you're wrong to object to the previous ruling because this ruling has always been there for you. Here are the reasons why you're wrong." You should read the PDF.

Personally, I am never going to agree to any of this. It's far too right wing and regressive/oppressive to me.

And I think the alternative is way too right wing because it puts the interest of a company before the interest of the person. Protecting the personal rights of a person isn't right wing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Boooomph.

This has now gone into action, with Google beginning to censor results with some unusual repercussions, like this, wherein the BBC's business editor (well, now he's economics editor) has had a blog from 2007 taken out of search results:

This morning the BBC received the following notification from Google:

Notice of removal from Google Search: we regret to inform you that we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/ robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

Which means that to all intents and purposes the article has been removed from the public record, given that Google is the route to information and stories for most people.

So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?

...

My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.

Is the data in it "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant"?

Hmmm.

Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record - especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America).

So there is an argument that in removing the blog, Google is confirming the fears of many in the industry that the "right to be forgotten" will be abused to curb freedom of expression and to suppress legitimate journalism that is in the public interest.

...

UPDATE 22:50
My blog remains findable when you search Stan O'Neal. So I am beginning to wonder whether it really was him who requested to be forgotten.

The implication is that oblivion was requested not by anyone who appears in the blog itself (O'Neal is the only person I mention in my column) but by someone named in the comments written by readers underneath the blog.

Google won't tell me, one way or another.

It is all a bit odd.

What say you, Neo Gaf?

 

[Moosichu]

Boooomph.

This has now gone into action, with Google beginning to censor results with some unusual repercussions, like this, wherein the BBC's business editor (well, now he's economics editor) has had a blog from 2007 taken out of search results:



...

My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.

Is the data in it "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant"?

Hmmm.

Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record - especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America).

So there is an argument that in removing the blog, Google is confirming the fears of many in the industry that the "right to be forgotten" will be abused to curb freedom of expression and to suppress legitimate journalism that is in the public interest.

...

UPDATE 22:50
My blog remains findable when you search Stan O'Neal. So I am beginning to wonder whether it really was him who requested to be forgotten.

The implication is that oblivion was requested not by anyone who appears in the blog itself (O'Neal is the only person I mention in my column) but by someone named in the comments written by readers underneath the blog.

Google won't tell me, one way or another.

It is all a bit odd.

What say you, Neo Gaf?[/QUOTE]

That does seem to be what it's there for. I defeintely think this ruling is a bad one.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Google won't tell me, one way or another.

is Google allowed to tell him?

 

[Walshicus]

is Google allowed to tell him?

Who knows.

Maybe it'll lead to news providers removing comments sections? Nothing of value would be lost.

 

[CyclopsRock]

is Google allowed to tell him?

No one knows, and there's no actual regulatory procedure for, say, the BBC to appeal the decision.

Who knows.

Maybe it'll lead to news providers removing comments sections? Nothing of value would be lost.

That seems a little silly, given the incredible similarities between the comments section of a newspaper article on the EU backing the right to be forgotten, and this very thread.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I dare anyone to defend this stupid ruling now.

 

[davepoobond]

Sounds like half of the Internet will become unsearchable.

Good work.


Can it be overturned?

 

[CyclopsRock]

David Mitchell's Guardian article about this is predictably funny and astute:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rnet-work-of-fiction-david-mitchell-eu-google

Back in May, when the European Court of Justice upheld the notion of citizens' right to be forgotten online, it sort of seemed reasonable. It's nice for people to be able to shake off their pasts. Everyone makes mistakes – but the internet turns them into virtual tattoos, indelible marks of our moments of foolishness, visible to anyone wearing Google Glasses.

Why should a few drunken student photographs preclude people's solemn applications to become accountants or nuns or Tory MPs? Not everyone who dresses up as a Nazi is really a Nazi. Or is still a Nazi. Take Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood in Where Eagles Dare – they're not even Nazis in that film.

The court didn't order that unflattering truths about people had to be actually deleted from websites – just that, if someone requested it, search engines should stop providing links to those sites when responding to searches that included the requester's name. This was all because of a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, who has spent years trying to suppress the embarrassing truth that in 1998 his house was repossessed to pay off his social security debts.

He may have won his case but it's hard to think of how he could have failed more comprehensively in his aims. I know nothing about the man apart from the fact that his house was repossessed in order to pay off his social security debts. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of anything else that happened in 1998. Having done a spot of Googling, I learn that it was also the year that Geri Halliwell left the Spice Girls, arguably a misstep in her career which she may now be considering applying to have concealed. Posterity already seems less likely to remember it than González's repossession which, thanks to his efforts, may be the last event in human history to be reliably reported online.

You may think that's a hysterical response. After all, the court specified that the right to be forgotten didn't apply "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". (Zing! Thanks ECJ – now I've nearly hit my word count!) But last week there were worrying signs that this qualification isn't working out. On Wednesday morning, Google informed the BBC that, when responding to "certain searches", it would no longer provide a link to a 2007 blog post by Robert Peston.

This was as alarming as it was puzzling, like a crossword attached to a bomb. The blog doesn't even mention Geri Halliwell. It only mentions one person: Stan O'Neal, former boss of Merrill Lynch, who was sacked for nearly ruining that bank with toxic securities. But it wasn't O'Neal who requested the article's suppression; according to Google's UK head of communications, Peter Barron, it was "an ordinary member of the public who left a comment on Robert's blog" and he reassured us that "If you search for Merrill Lynch [the blog] will appear. If you search for Stan O'Neal it will appear. Only if you search for the very narrow term of the name of the individual commenter would it not appear."

Looking through the commenters, my money was on Oren Vinishavsky whose post is racist, but the piece still comes up if you Google his name. However, Googling several of the other names (for example, Peter Abatan or Derek Farmer, whose contributions are inoffensive) leads to a page carrying the disclaimer "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe". So maybe it was one of them, though I can't understand why. Perhaps the culprit was skiving off the wedding of a despised but vengeful cousin when he posted. Either way, it's ominous because this blog is obviously a proper bit of journalism about an important thing, not just the notice of eviction of a random Spaniard.

More at the link. Googling (huzzah) for "right to be forgotten" and select "News" and it's just a cavalcade of negative articles about its unintended results. Now, of course, no website is going to want their results censored so maybe they would say this but, still, it seems like it's not quite going to plan. Aside from anything, it seems a bit wrong for Google to have to "hire an army of paralegals" to censor their own results.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

David Mitchell's Guardian article about this is predictably funny and astute:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rnet-work-of-fiction-david-mitchell-eu-google



More at the link. Googling (huzzah) for "right to be forgotten" and select "News" and it's just a cavalcade of negative articles about its unintended results. Now, of course, no website is going to want their results censored so maybe they would say this but, still, it seems like it's not quite going to plan. Aside from anything, it seems a bit wrong for Google to have to "hire an army of paralegals" to censor their own results.

Lol at him naming the people.

 

[poppabk]

Maybe it's just me but it still seems to be working how I would expect. As noted you can still find the BBC guys article through Google, it just doesn't show up when googling a specific name that is completely unrelated to the articles content.

 

[Stinkles]

Btw, the people pushing this are the very rich and powerful who wish their misdeeds and potential misdeeds to be forgotten.

This is an incredible moment of censorship.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Btw, the people pushing this are the very rich and powerful who wish their misdeeds and potential misdeeds to be forgotten.

This is an incredible moment of censorship.

read back to the beginning of this thread,

 

[Joni]

I'm in any case very glad it is possible now. If you Googled my real name, you could find my address and phone number while the site where it gets it from only allows that information to be found if you actually list my hometown.

 

[poppabk]

Btw, the people pushing this are the very rich and powerful who wish their misdeeds and potential misdeeds to be forgotten.

This is an incredible moment of censorship.

If journalism has fallen so low that-
"do we have anything on Alan Sugar?"
Google
A-l-a-n--S-u-g-
a-r
"nope nothing, he's squeaky clean"
- is the sum total of investigative journalism, then we have bigger problems than this law.

 

[ISOM]

If journalism has fallen so low that-
"do we have anything on Alan Sugar?"
Google
A-l-a-n--S-u-g-
a-r
"nope nothing, he's squeaky clean"
- is the sum total of investigative journalism, then we have bigger problems than this law.

Do you understand the issue here? It's not that investigative journalism that is the problem it's the average person who would try to look up the name of this influential person that would not be able to do so.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Maybe it's just me but it still seems to be working how I would expect. As noted you can still find the BBC guys article through Google, it just doesn't show up when googling a specific name that is completely unrelated to the articles content.

But the point, surely, is that there has been at least one case already of something being removed that didn't really fit the original criteria for removal - there's no obvious bit of irrelevant information especially when one considers that it was the person in question that actually posted the information. This sets a rather worrying precedent of attempting to hide what you've previous said.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Do you understand the issue here? It's not that investigative journalism that is the problem it's the average person who would try to look up the name of this influential person that would not be able to do so.

Everyone can look up information, it will just take more effort then 10 seconds sitting behind a computer. There was a world before Google after all.

 

[poppabk]

Do you understand the issue here? It's not that investigative journalism that is the problem it's the average person who would try to look up the name of this influential person that would not be able to do so.

To what end though? The only possible abuse of this I can think of is for SEO page ranking.
The main downside I see is just how complicated and ungainly it could become.

 

[poppabk]

But the point, surely, is that there has been at least one case already of something being removed that didn't really fit the original criteria for removal - there's no obvious bit of irrelevant information especially when one considers that it was the person in question that actually posted the information. This sets a rather worrying precedent of attempting to hide what you've previous said.

Ironically I can't find what they might be trying to hide as I can no longer find the original blog post as it has been buried by sites posting the story of it being buried.
Edit: Found it, but could not find it through Google because it is buried in the search results now. There are people on there who had worked at Meryl and who commented with their (or someone else's ) real name bad mouthing their former employer. It seems perfectly reasonable that they may no longer want those comments associated with their name.

 

[Kinitari]

The weirdest part of all this for me I think is that Google is the arbiter here, they have to decide when the amazingly cryptic criteria has to be applied.

Also, it's weird that a search that works for me won't work for people in Europe. Feels so weird. But I guess regional search engine censorship isn't new

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ironically I can't find what they might be trying to hide as I can no longer find the original blog post as it has been buried by sites posting the story of it being buried.
Edit: Found it, but could not find it through Google because it is buried in the search results now. There are people on there who had worked at Meryl and who commented with their (or someone else's ) real name bad mouthing their former employer. It seems perfectly reasonable that they may no longer want those comments associated with their name.

Then I'd recommend they shouldn't make such comments. If they're worried that potential future employers might be Googling their name and seeing that they talk about their previous employers, that's because they do talk about their previous employers.

I'm not sure the purpose of this ruling was so that people could cover their tracks, especially - again - when they posted the information themselves.