We’re exercising our freedom and taking off the 3rd to celebrate the 4th. See you Monday!Hide

Pedophile, Embarrassed Politician And Disliked Doctor Kick Off Attempts To Delete Their Histories From Google

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

We've already written about a dangerous ruling from the EU Court of Justice that says that Google can be forced to stop linking to factual information about someone online. Not surprisingly, people with pasts they wish everyone would forget have already started lining up to get those embarrassing histories wiped. According to the BBC:
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.
This is exactly what people predicted would happen. The EU court has more or less opened the door to widespread censorship of factual information that people find embarrassing. Those who keep cheering this ruling on as a victory for "privacy" don't seem to understand what privacy means. Public information about bad things you did is not private information. People may not like having it online and available, but it is difficult to see a legitimate reason for pulling it off.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Roger Strong (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 10:18am

    The NSA has recently been embarrassed and criticized on the internets. Expect a similar request from them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Out Of The Blue, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:20am

    A formal request...

    Dearest techdirtbags and google appologists! I do hereby request that you remove all of the posts that your abusive stupid contributors and readers reported, so that everyone in the world will now realize how awesomely awesome I am.


    NOT Respectfully submitted,
    Out Of The Blue JD/PhD

    Secret confirmation code to ensure security code:
    qwertyuiop.867-5309

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:21am

    Since this applies to Google. I wonder if individuals can force Facebook to delete posts off other people's facebook walls, if it contains information about them they do not want to be public. I suppose the same can happen with Twitter now, and every single website on the internet.

    I find it ironic that the EU justices went after Google, instead of the actual websites hosting the 'infringing' content. I suppose it makes sense to handle it this way, if you view Google as the internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:22am

    So... they'll still be searchable on Bing right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Roger Strong (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 10:28am

    Pasts They Wish Everyone Would Forget

    The Star Wars sequels just started filming. Expect an email from Disney asking for removal of all references to the prequels.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Parts Per Million Man, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:58am

      Re: Pasts They Wish Everyone Would Forget

      Close, they actually filed to remove The Star Wars Holiday Special.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:30am

    If this ruling stands around half of Techdirt's articles will be wiped from Google, at the request of John Steele and Paul Duffy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:31am

    If I have knowledge of a child abuser or muderer I have a natural right and duty to inform others of the potential threat law be damned

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Duke (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 10:35am

    I think the later part of that article is the important bit, where the lawyer suggests that Google could just refer the requests to the ICO to deal with. As the article notes, this is about removing "irrelevant and outdated information", I'm not sure if any of the three examples classifies, or if their right to privacy about that information will outweigh the wider public interest in the information being accessible.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Adrian Lopez, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:14am

      Re:

      The proper way to deal with "outdated" information is to supplement it with up-to-date information. If the outdated information is of a kind that refusing to update it basically amounts to a lie, only then is it reasonable to limit its disclosure. Furthermore, any limitations should apply only to those actually repeating the information, and never to the people indexing it.

      As for "irrelevant" information: irrelevant with respect to what, exactly? If it's irrelevant to what you're searching for, then you're probably not using the right search terms (Google is very careful about providing results which are relevant to your choice of keywords). If it's irrelevant in a more general sense, however, it makes me wonder why it was ever considered relevant enough to be published.

      To recognize "irrelevant and outdated" as valid standard for the law is to require that speech be relevant and up to date. That's a ridiculous standard upon which to judge a person's right to speak about anything.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        madasahatter (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 11:34am

        Re: Re:

        If it the information was publicly disclosed, it is available even if someone has to search literal library stacks. All any search engine does is make finding online information easier. The problem with the ruling is it confuses one's public life with one's private life. What one does in public, as a business, or shared online is by default now public.

        An interesting question about surveillance cameras in Europe; does anyone have the right to have footage wiped?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Adrian Lopez, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:42am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."

          "Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."

          "But the plans were on display ..."

          "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

          "That's the display department."

          "With a flashlight."

          "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."

          "So had the stairs."

          "But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

          "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

          (from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jessie (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 11:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Yes your honor, we have surveillance footage of the defendant killing his wife.

          Objection your honor, my client would like this information deleted as he finds it embarrassing.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Manok, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:49am

    Dear Google, my name is Adolf Hitler, and me being European, you need to remove all these negative stories about me. I'm merely a painter from Austria, and all those other things are not relevant. You are violating my privacy!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Derek Kerton (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 2:02pm

      Re:

      Sir,

      We at Google have responded to your request, and have listed you as both a painter, an author, and a reknown moustache trend-setter.

      To complete the job, we have also re-defined "Godwin's Law" as:
      "In any Internet discussion, it is only a matter of time before someone feigns being a doge or a cat who mis-spells words like "i can has cheezburger".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 10:53am

    Well that didn't take long

    It hasn't even been a week since the ruling.

    Ex-politician wanting links to articles about his activities in office removed? Screw you buddy, you're a public figure, you don't get that luxury.

    Man convicted of having child porn wants links about his conviction taken down? You're a sex offender dirtbag, you lost any "right-to-be-forgotten" a long time ago.

    As for the doctor? No. Just... no.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 10:54am

    A Pedophile, Politician and Doctor walk into a bar...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:00am

    So, in the U.S. the name and address of convicted pedophiles are required to be posted online, but in Europe they are forbidden to be posted online.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:05am

      Re:

      Close.

      In the US, the name and address of convicted pedophiles are required to be posted online mixed in with anyone convicted of public nakedness, committing a lude act (funny or not), and anyone who was caught with a prostitute - presumably so you cannot tell who has actually done something you should be concerned about.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous, May 17th, 2014 @ 12:02pm

      Re:

      Exactly what are "convicted pedophiles"?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Pragmatic, May 20th, 2014 @ 5:26am

        Re: Re:

        Convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

        Public information about bad things you did is not private information. People may not like having it online and available, but it is difficult to see a legitimate reason for pulling it off.

        While I'd hate to be made to pay for something stupid I did for the rest of my life, the smart thing to do is get it expunged by asking the site on which the information is held to remove it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adolf Hitler, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:15am

    Removed from search result

    I have already submitted my request to be removed from all Search results.

    - Adolf Hitler

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:21am

    I wonder...

    Is this likely to have any effect on Google search results in the US? Will the EU get to dictate what American citizens are allowed to see in their search results despite the fact that suppressing factual claims and statements is quite unequivocally prohibited by the US constitution?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:26am

      Re: I wonder...

      Google, at least, has been pretty good so far about making sure local filtering laws do not impact everyone else. I think it is likely they will filter search results to accomodate these laws based on the geographical location of the user - thus making it really easy for Europeans to bypass.

      Other search engines - who knows?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Adrian Lopez, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:34am

        Re: Re: I wonder...

        You may be right, but some people claim it has broader implications than that. Said EU's justice commissioner Viviane Reding: "Today's court judgment is a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans. Companies can no longer hide behind their servers being based in California or anywhere else." (source)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jessie (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 11:24am

    I think the quickest way to get this fixed is for google to take a scorched earth approach. If you file to have info removed, in an over abundance of caution, in those countries where this applies, no search results containing your name will appear. That way they can argue that it is safer for google legally since they don't regulate what is on the net. This will last until the politicians realize now no one can google their election site and that the public then knows that they had something they wanted to hide. Then the law will change fast.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:30am

      Re:

      Dear Google,

      My legal name is "Disney Hollywood Movie Download Free". I insist that you remove the search results for any part of my name.

      Thank you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

      Re:

      There are 37 John Smiths where i live. I doubt all of the would like to vanish from the internet. Its gota be something more than a name. Not including nicknames, misspellings and aliases. This is going to be ugly.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jessie (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 12:25pm

        Re: Re:

        I figure if the politicians start losing campaign contributions because people can't find their websites, it'll change fast. Nothing hurts a politician like losing money.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 19th, 2014 @ 7:11am

        Re: John Smiths

        Per the verdict, "the search provider" can only be requested to remove:

        - specific pages
        - as results of searches based on the person's name
        - if the information is not still relevant to the public at large
        - (and the requester can document that he is the person referred to on the page)

        Google shouldn't get to decide #3, and #4 is bloody hard, so just reject all requests and let the "privacy seeking individual" escalate it to the courts if they are serious.

        The "early adapters" are probably politicians trying to make a story about themselves, and they are public figures.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 11:32am

    Does this create a market opportunity for other search providers?

    If there is no central clearinghouse for "amnesia" requests -- so that this is basically a notice-and-takedown regime for search -- does this create a market opportunity for other search engines that haven't been noticed (and haven't taken down links)?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, May 16th, 2014 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Does this create a market opportunity for other search providers?

      does this create a market opportunity for other search engines that haven't been noticed

      Yes. That is one of the many issues. I would say their plan has a few holes in it, but is is more like their holes have a little plan around them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), May 16th, 2014 @ 12:16pm

    Expect asshole tea baggers to try and pull this here in USA............won't work for you !
    HA !

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 12:56pm

    Useful Ruse

    "Those who keep cheering this ruling on as a victory for "privacy" don't seem to understand what privacy means."

    Of course they do. That doesn't mean that it isn't a useful ruse to accomplish other objectives, though.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 2:12pm

    Policy implosion

    This is one of those situations where the policies are so messed up, that they will inevitably create so much trouble that the system will basically collapse under it's own weight-- thus creating the opportunity to restore sanity.

    Tragically, I find myself hoping for copyright and patent maximalists to get their wishes for exactly the same reason. It is unlikely that there will ever be any sanity in those areas until after they have completely destroyed the economy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Dr. Dave, May 16th, 2014 @ 2:26pm

    Right to Free Speech

    What about my right to free speech. Why should a right to privacy trump the right to free speech. If I write post something on the internet about what a bad doctor, it is my right to have my voice heard. One right is getting trumped by another in this case.

    The only situation I can see where it would not be is if I posted something about myself (ie a stupid picture) and decided it was a poor decision. This is the only situation where it seems someone should be allowed to demand something is erased from the internet, if it is even possible to truly delete.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 16th, 2014 @ 6:00pm

    Forbidden List

    Okay, so now all Google needs to do is make sure that people know what not to post on their social networks. So they'll put up a big list of court forbidden content, like so.

    "Mentioning that took bribes in the form of access to livestock in exchange for government contracts is forbidden. Also forbidden is mentioning that was given negative reviews for doing routine surgery drunk and causing no less than three people to lose limbs and two deaths. Likewise you can't mention that was found with two terabytes of child pornography."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2014 @ 1:19am

    Any article that uses the "muh children" argument should be ignored by publishers.
    I dont care what the other points are, that one shows that they have nothing real to report

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 17th, 2014 @ 8:08am

    Right to be forgotten

    Fugetaboutit..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Zingba, Jun 18th, 2014 @ 4:50am

    Re:Re:Re:

    ^^

    The whole reason the concept of records expungement even exists is the idea that people shouldn't be held over a barrel for something they did for the rest of their lives. Naturally, there are some offenses for which there is no records expungement, some people lose the right to expungement if reoffending, etc, etc, etc... All these protocols were put into place BEFORE the internet existed and became a permanent digital dossier on people. Likewise, public records laws are rooted in a time when government records weren't digitally available and regurgitated into peoples living rooms for fun and profit.

    Does 'right to be forgotten' have issues to sort out? Yes, for example, the pedophile or doctor with legit complaints thing. That's a tricky world but as with all laws, there is rarely a black and white answer. I think its possible to err on the side of free speech but while allowing a mechanism to keep peoples lives from being ruined. The devil will be in the details, idealogues won't like it either way but the internet really changed the game and requires a fresh look at how information is distributed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.