Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live

from the Google's-search-results-soon-to-be-as-reliable-as-a-retired-boxer's-memo dept

Apparently, European citizens prefer a sanitized web -- one that won't clutter up their vanity searches with embarrassing results. Julia Fioretti's report for Reuters on the new "forget me now" web form Google recently deployed contains this impressive fact.

After putting up the online form in the early hours of Friday, Google received 12,000 requests across Europe, sometimes averaging 20 per minute, by late in the day, the company said.
Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know. Data protection authorities are supposed to meet next week to attempt to reach some sort of consensus. Meanwhile, the requests continue to pour in.

The web form is very straightforward, asking for country of origin, as well as a brief statement as to why the complainant feels each listed link should be removed. Those making requests are required to upload a copy of documents proving their identity, a safeguard against abuse and one that might generate second thoughts in a few requesters (especially if the request fails to meet the eventual applicable standards).

Americans who want certain things to be de-listed are still out of luck… for now. As Eric Goldman points out, US courts are still very hesitant to hold Google accountable for the content it indexes and aren't in a big hurry to carve holes in Section 230 protections. This holds true even if it's an algorithm that's somehow managed to cobble together something unflattering from a massive pile of indexed text.
Today’s case gives us a good example of the growing divergence between US and EU search results. O’Kroley did a vanity search and got the following search results snippet:

Texas Advance Sheet March 2012–Google Books Result books.google.com/books? id=kO1rxn9COwsC …

Fastcase—2012

… indecency with a child in Trial Court Cause N … Colin O’Kroley v. Pringle. (Tex.App., 2012). MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 9, 2012, Colin O’Kroley filed in.
The plaintiff argued that the text snippet was clearly defamatory, even if the document in full wasn't. The court didn't buy it.
the undersigned Magistrate Judge has found no case that makes the precise claim that O’Kroley makes here—that the underlying information, viewed in its entirety, is not defamatory, but that it has been rendered defamatory by Google’s automated editing process that juxtaposed two sentence fragments in the snippet. Nevertheless, based upon the “robust” immunity afforded under Section 230, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that the editorial acts of Google creating the offensive search result are subject to statutory immunity. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Google is immune from all claims in the complaint, and that Google’s motion to dismiss must be granted.
If you're looking to cleanse the web stateside, you don't really have many options beyond the court system, and there's no success guaranteed there, even if you have a more solid claim than O'Kroley's. But I'm not sure if there's any reason to be clamoring for a "right to be forgotten." Google's new service doesn't actually make content disappear. It simply removes it from its index. Other search engines will still be able to locate it, at least for the time being.

Beyond that, you have to consider the implications of putting the "keep/remove" decision in the hands of politicians and tech giants. Both can be incredibly self-serving. Neither truly has the best interests of the public in mind. The EU may be able to dictate Google's delistings, but at this point, it's not operating on anything more concrete than a gut feeling that there's something wrong with good people being linked to bad stuff. But it's an unrealistic goal. Good people will still be wrongly linked with bad stuff, and bad people will still get away with hiding evidence of their wrongdoing.

A lot of bad precedent has led to this decision -- like superinjunctions and defamation laws so easily abused, certain countries have become temporary "homes" for libel tourists. This push for specifically Google to operate a deliberately faulty search engine has been in the works for years, starting with cries about Google "enabling" piracy (and child pornography, etc.) by returning the search results it was asked to fetch, and culminating in this exercise in symbolic gestures: Google whitewashing search results while the troubling content remains undisturbed.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 5:43am

    Wow. So Google's not immune to the will of the people and the law itself. Who knew?

     

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

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 5:44am

    So the new game of whack a mole is up and running. Some one just moves the page, or copy bits into a new page and the information pops up for the next whack.

     

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

  3.  
    icon
    Anonymous Howard (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 5:45am

    You're confusing government with citizens

    Apparently, European citizens prefer a sanitized web

    This is as accurate as, say, 'American citizens love oppressive copyright' or 'American citizens love to spy on the whole world'.

     

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

  4.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 5:53am

    And they fail to realise that the information is still on the Internet.

    When will people realise that Google != Internet?

     

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

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 5:57am

    Beyond that, you have to consider the implications of putting the "keep/remove" decision in the hands of politicians and tech giants. Both can be incredibly self-serving. Neither truly has the best interests of the public in mind.

    Anyone else think that the trolls will still continue to write this site off as a tech giant apologist site despite another notch of evidence indicating the contrary?

     

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

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:04am

    Re:

    No, they'll just sue Google again.

     

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

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:10am

    Re:

    Oh, it's always been clear that Google is not immune to the will of the people and the law itself. The problem is that the will of the people wants these links up, and the law wants them down.

    The underlying problem is that the laws of mathematics and information theory are immune to the will of the people and the law itself.

     

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

  8.  
    icon
    Geno0wl (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:12am

    This is how Google will actually die

    Eventually people of "good" taste will stop using google for these very reasons. They will switch to a search engine without all of these special redactions built into them.
    In 10 years stupid politicians will still be fighting with google about their search results, while real queries are run through some other new platform. Followed by 10 years after that this cycle happening AGAIN with the new engine.
    Repeat ad infinitum.

     

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

  9.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:19am

    Re:

    Your comment, typically, is nonsensical.

    Google have been ordered to do something that's unworkable, will never have the effect desired of it and does nothing to address the actual problem. In response, it's done what it can to comply, even as it's obvious to anybody that this won't do the thing it's intended to do - but since the order is asking the impossible, they comply as best they can.

    In other words, it's doing just what it normally does. Now, **AA supporters like to bitch and moan that Google are somehow unreasonable in asking them to fill out a similar form and/or that Google can't perfectly police content that not even **AA members themselves can correctly identify, but that doesn't mean they don't comply.

    But, whatever Google do, they cannot remove the content from the internet, they can only ensure it's as difficult as possible to find with its own tool. Perhaps, once this is proven not to work in the way demanded of it, those in charge can stop pretending that Google is the internet and start addressing the actual problems?

     

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

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:25am

    Forwarded comment I saw on Dave Farber's "IP" list

    "If the world's largest social networking site was ever a CIA program to get everybody to provide full details about their life at an incredibly low cost, this would be the next big thing: since it is too expensive to scour millions and millions of Web pages out there for things that people would rather hide from view, so why not ask people to point this out themselves and provide their full ID so as to make sure the information is source verified? What a lovely database that makes if you ever want to blackmail anyone.

    Pure genius."
    (from OIivier MJ Cr??pin-Leblond)

     

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

  11.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:28am

    Re:

    Of course. Most of them don't read past the headline, and even when they do they often attribute the text to the wrong person.

     

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

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:39am

    I'm amazed it's automatic now.

    If I were any kind of troll/marketer, I would start setting up bots to destroy the usability of the competition.

    Like search for a feature of our company and just start spamming the links of competitor companies on that form until it's all gone. Naturally I must do this because I can also assume the competition is doing it to my own.

    Mutually assured Amnesia

     

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

  13.  
    icon
    Zakida Paul (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:40am

    Re: This is how Google will actually die

    I have already stopped using Google search

     

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

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:42am

    Re: Re:

    Why are you giving attention and well-written responses to the trolls?

     

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

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:48am

    Re: Re:

    Oh, it's always been clear that Google is not immune to the will of the people and the law itself. The problem is that the will of the people wants these links up, and the law wants them down.

    The headline suggests that you are wrong. People seem to be voting "NO" at the rate of 1000+ per hour.

    "Europeans Club Google Over The Head At A Rate Of 1,000 Requests Per Hour After Its Search Engine Amnesia Tool Goes Live"

     

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

  16.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:52am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Partly boredom during a slow Monday, partly because some of this constant lying needs to be addressed if only for the sake of the lurkers.

     

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

  17.  
    icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:52am

    And at some point someone will point out how abuse-able this is, and put in some rules designed to stop the abuse... but it will lack teeth.

    Holding a search engine responsible is the stupid way out. It does not remove the content, it just makes it "harder" to find... until you remember that Google isn't the only search engine.

    Obviously they have learned nothing from the failure of the DMCA, or they have just believed the hype that this stupid idea actually works based on the climbing number of demands and ignoring how flawed many of the requests are.

    It is stupid to hold Google responsible, giving them the requirement of solving someone elses problem for free. Imagine how few requests would be pouring in if there was a fee to make the request and a larger penalty if it failed to meet the requirements. The **AA's like to tout the number of requests they pour into Google, but ignore how many are truly flawed and it does nothing to remove the original content... imagine how much better that system would be if they had to pay a small fee for each request and pay a fine when they got it wrong. They might stop expecting a 3rd party to wave a wand and solve it, and do it themselves.

     

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

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:53am

    Re: Re:

    Google simply making if as difficult as possible to find (as they do with child porn) is sufficient. I think everyone realizes that they can't "remove" it- just make it damn near impossible to find. That's good enough.

     

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

  19.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 6:54am

    Re: Re: Re:

    "The headline suggests that you are wrong. People seem to be voting "NO" at the rate of 1000+ per hour."

    "Voting" is easy when you only have the choice to vote one way. Where's the form I fill in the say that this is a bunch of unworkable shite and I'd rather have the resources of Google and the EU government spent on something not only useful but also *possible*? Let me guess, you're one of the ACs who whines here every time the will of the people is translated into your comments being hidden?

     

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

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 7:00am

    Re: Re: Re:

    most of them politicians.

     

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

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 7:02am

    this has happened because of good and bad people doing things they dont want to world and his wife knowing about. if it removes any info concerning a persons criminal behavior, particularly where children are concerned, it's gonna be really abused! the worrying thing to me is that this decision has been reached by a small group of people who are supposed to be the best legal minds in the EU! if that is the case, i'd hate to be tried by the worst! these people either haven't thought through what the result would be or didn't care, as long as the elite few are able to remove themselves from the public eye, screw what else happens! real dangerous view people, real dangerous. i sincerely hope that this was done just to get a preview of what would happen and that in the next meeting, the decision is reversed, for obvious reasons!!

     

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

  22.  
    identicon
    David, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 7:27am

    Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?

    Why not just accept every request from the EU for 'forgetting' a link? Treat it like a DCMA notice and just drop the link from the EU index. The courts have indicated that the public has a 'right' to not be listed, but there's really no 'right' to be listed. That would make listing links pretty much manual for the EU, and let the content providers and individuals right it out in the EU courts amongst themselves. Google shouldn't have to spend too much time on it. Give the EU courts a tool where they can manage the index in EU however they want.

     

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

  23.  
    icon
    JWW (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 7:37am

    So

    This is how free speech dies, not with a whimper, but with thunderous applause.

    While their are things to admire about Europe, their stance on freedom of speech is not one of them.

     

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

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 7:50am

    Website that shows all the requests?

    The link may have to be taken down, but nothing says they cant publish all the information directly about the people who ask for the takedown does it?

    They could not link to it, but a common named site would be easy enough to figure out and people would be much more apt to not risk bringing attention to themselves.

     

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

  25. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Hey Paul, I'm not the one sniveling. That'd be you and the other Google fanboy sheep, asswipe. Go ahead, censor away!! It only serves to demonstrate what sort of hypocritical shitbag you are anyway.

     

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

  26.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 8:22am

    Right to remember

    No matter what laws are passed, it will never actually affect anyone's inalienable right to remember.

    I also hope that Google releases information on which sites they are forced to censor, just to make sure they get crawled and put into YaCy's index.

     

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

  27.  
    icon
    Josh (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 8:30am

    I don't have a problem with it,

    but, I would require 2 changes. First all search engines and sites(facebook etc) have this as an option. Second, you have all Data removed about you, you don't get to select only the bad things. You loose it all.

    I would be OK with it.

     

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

  28.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 8:36am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    And the nerve is hit. Game, set and match.

     

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

  29.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    We don't really have much in the way of Google fanboys.

    Unless not being uniformly negative opinions on every topic involving Google counts as fanboyism. At which point to vast majority of people would qualify as fanboys

     

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

  30.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:02am

    Re: Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?

    Perhaps the ideal solution would be, for starters, for the internet to 'forget' France in its entirety. Once those nutters are invisible, then move on to the next complaining-est country and disappear it as well, and so on.

     

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

  31.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I meant having not being

     

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

  32.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:27am

    1,000 people/ph with "Nothing to Hide"

     

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

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:47am

    Right to Know

    What is this "Right to Know" I keep hearing about?

    Is it part of a constitution of some country somewhere or a law that says I have a right to know all about you, or you to know about me?

    I'm lost here...can anyone help me out on this?

     

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

  34.  
    identicon
    David, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:48am

    Re: Re: Why worry about exceeding the courts 'bar'?

    But then they would get mad at Google. This way, they can make themselves invisible without having a legitimate complaint against Google. Everybody wins.

     

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

  35.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you wont mind me now taking defamation action against YOU then after alluding that I am a sheep etc etc..

    Oh and remember I'm not in the USA and after discovery if I find you are in Europe you are basically fucked, if on the other hand I find out you are an American.. well good luck flying anywhere ;)

    Oh and if you don't respond to this comment or you do with some sort of "your law cant affect me" (See Gutnick for how it can )I would really point you in the direction of your concluding statement about hypocrisy and being a shitbag.

     

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

  36.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:00am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Addendum to above comment..

    It is mine (Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:58am).. sadly due to cookies (who ate them) i was not logged in

     

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

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Each takedown request is one person voting "no" on one link. Who is counting the "yes" votes on each link?

     

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

  38.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:09am

    clean slate

    [Celebrity]: I want people to forget that scandal about me.

    [Public]: Tough, we like that story. And those photos! Whoah, Nellie!

    [Celebrity]: Hey government, may I change my identity?

    [Government]: No, that would require work on our part.

    [Celebrity]: Yeah, mine too. And I like the good parts of my fame. Well, can you trick the public?

    [Government]: What a silly question, haven't you been-- oh, you mean for you? Well, maybe. But only if we don't have to do any work.

    [Celebrity]: I don't like work either!

    [Public]: Neither do we!

    [Celebrity]: So what do we do when we have a big complex technical job to do, but we'd really like somebody else to--

    [all together]: GOOGLE!

     

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

  39.  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    People are making requests for blocks (voting NO) at the rate of 1000+ per hour.

    Other people are searching for and following those links (voting YES) at a rate orders of magnitude higher.

     

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

  40.  
    identicon
    PRMan, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:20am

    Re: Re: This is how Google will actually die

    I just switched to Duck Duck Go this week when I ran a search for a specific scene in a game I was stuck on (with the title of the game in the search) and Google returned ZERO results about the game.

     

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

  41.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:27am

    Re: Right to Know

    What is this "Right to Know" I keep hearing about?


    I've seen nobody talking about a "right to know". But you're comment is silly anyways, since we are talking about censoring information that is already public knowledge.

    Now, we all do have an inalienable right to remember, which cannot be legislated away, no matter how many laws are passed.

     

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

  42.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So you wont mind me now taking defamation action against YOU then after alluding that I am a sheep etc etc..

    Oh and remember I'm not in the USA and after discovery if I find you are in Europe you are basically fucked, if on the other hand I find out you are an American.. well good luck flying anywhere ;)

    Oh and if you don't respond to this comment or you do with some sort of "your law cant affect me" (See Gutnick for how it can )I would really point you in the direction of your concluding statement about hypocrisy and being a shitbag.


    Ooooooo.... I'm scared now. Don't forget to add the fact that I invited you to, "suck it" to your list of charges.

     

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

  43.  
    identicon
    Annonimus, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 11:13am

    Re:

    Its actually worse for Google than that: if it bends its head low enough it will be replaced with a search engine that wont try to edit any of its results. And since Google has already bent its head its easier to put a boot on top and push down. If Google does not reverse its direction it will be obsolete in 10 years and it does not have a short term reason not to bend its head.

     

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

  44.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 11:16am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    what I and others thought, your a hypocrite, troll and a shitbag .. though I repeat myself

     

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

  45.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 11:28am

    'Nuke it from orbit'

    I've seen it mentioned a few times, but the best way for Google to fight something this insane is to go the nuclear route. If they get a 'valid' submission, in this case one that comes with verified personal identification, they should remove all links to the person/agency in question, 'just in case'.

    Maybe if people suddenly find that, at least according to Google, they flat out don't exist after filing to have that one/two/bunch of embarrassing things no longer listed, maybe then they'll actually put some thought into this, not to mention the money and time it would save Google(because, who exactly is paying for this new 'service' they've been forced to offer?).

     

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

  46.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 11:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    My, my, such a visceral reaction. Obviously that comes from your (well-deserved) Australian inferiority complex. I guess that being the spawn of criminals and being bested by the British at every turn, leaves you to lash out at your betters from a deep-seated sense of worthlessness and frustration. Perhaps you'll be able to get past it one day, mate. Until then, we'll all continue a good laugh at your expense.

     

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

  47.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ad-hom: The best way to say 'You win, I have no credible counter-argument' without actually directly saying it.

     

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

  48.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 12:31pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm not the one sniveling"

    No, but you do appear to be the one with a persecution complex, and probably won't exercise whatever intellect you actually posses to see the link between your childish profane tantrum and the resulting desire for adults to hide said comment. You're not even pretending to address the point in hand.

    It's not the outright lying that gets you in trouble, it's the way you choose to act like a toddler having a tantrum while lying your ass off. Yet again - when you grow up, you might work out the nuance in the arguments actually being made. Until then, expect your strawmen and tantrums to be met with the derision they deserve.

     

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

  49.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 12:42pm

    Re: clean slate

    This better get at least editor's choice for funny or insightful(or both), that was brilliant.

     

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

  50.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 12:44pm

    Re: Re: This is how Google will actually die

    Yeah, when they started modifying their search results based upon the say-so of third parties, they because rather useless as a search engine.

     

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

  51.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 1:35pm

    Re: 'Nuke it from orbit'

    "Maybe if people suddenly find that, at least according to Google, they flat out don't exist after filing [...]"

    Why, exactly, is that a problem? You do realize that there was a time that NONE of us existed according to Google, because Google itself didn't exist, don't you?

    We and the rest of the Internet got along just fine without them. If they vanished tomorrow, we'd get along just fine without them too.

    I'd be perfectly happy to disappear from Google and from the numerous social network sites I'm "on" thanks to friends and colleagues who handed them information about me without bothering to ask and from various halfass indexing services that carry information about me that's 20 years out of date and so on. I'm pretty sure I'll still exist even if all that crap disappears.

     

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

  52.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 5:55pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    That people believe that Google "can remove" it is precisely why they insisted on this rigmarole to begin with. You have no idea what you're talking about.

     

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

  53.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jun 2nd, 2014 @ 9:25pm

    Re: Re: 'Nuke it from orbit'

    The problem comes when you've got public information that the ones making the claims didn't post being pulled.

    Politicians that would really love it if an embarrassment or past deed of theirs wasn't able to be found, businesses that would quite like negative articles and/or critical reviews removed or hidden, stuff like that.

    In cases like that, you've got a public interest in allowing the information to remain public, as the reputation, or history of a person or group is quite likely to have an effect on the public, allowing them to make informed decision, on say who to vote for, or which business to purchase from or use the services of.

    Your comment also brought up a secondary concern, that of 'How do you treat information which wasn't posted by the one making the claim?' The data on you for example, was provided and gathered by third parties, so the question is does the fact that it's about you also give you control over it?

    Barring outright libel/slander type situations, where you're dealing with blatantly false information intended to attack someone, that's not really an easy question to answer there, and personally I'd lean towards 'No', as it's leaning a bit too much towards the idea of being able to dictate what others can say about you, not a pleasant idea for those that believe strongly in freedom of speech.

     

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

  54.  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    So your stating my comment is an emotional reaction and NOT a logical nor reasonable one?

    Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

    Did you actually look at my comments? and how you basically fell for them hook line and sinker and showed how much of a hypocrite you are due to the logic (and social engineering) imbued in them..

    The only illogical and emotional person in this scenario is the one you look at every day in the mirror!

    Thanks for the laugh though I needed one..

    Bwahahahahahahahahaahaha

     

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

  55.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 10:38am

    Re: Re: Right to Know

    Oh Gwiz...I guess you missed it.Third paragraph from the top.

    Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know.

    Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.
    I don't think it's silly at all to find out why everyone thinks there is a right to know.
    Just who or what is it that confers this right.
    Frankly I think it's just a catch phrase that journalist like to throw around.

     

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

  56.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: Right to Know

    Your question implies that there has to be some document somewhere that "grants" us a right in order for it to be a right. In the US, anyway, that's not the case at all.

    In the US, the right is inherent and a logical extension of our form of government. It is impossible to have anything close to a democratic form of government if the public doesn't know what is happening.

     

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

  57.  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jun 3rd, 2014 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Right to Know

    Oh Gwiz...I guess you missed it.Third paragraph from the top.

    Yep. You are right. I missed that.

    Where does this "right" come from.I'm part of the public and I don't have a "right" to know anything about you, nor you I.

    In addition to what John said, there are certain viable reasons for a right to know that don't necessarily involve the government, public safety being one of them. For example, most believe they have the right to know when a convicted pedophile moves into their neighborhood or next door to their kid's school.

    And I tend to agree with you that this phrase gets tossed about a bit too freely, but like I said above, it really doesn't apply here since we are talking about information that is already public and widely disseminated. We aren't talking about my right to know what you had for breakfast, but more along the lines of my right to revisit a newspaper article that accurately list all of your DUI's over the years.

     

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

  58.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 6th, 2014 @ 4:15pm

    The main problem with the "right to be forgotten" is that it doesn't work against Elephants.

     

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


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.