EU Court of Justice Paves Way For "Right To Be Forgotten" Online

We'll always have magnetic tape by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2014-05-13 00:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

Paris may forget you cheri, but marketers never will.

--
May the Maths Be with you!

WWSCOUTUSDO by alphatel · 2014-05-13 00:49 · Score: 1

Safe to say that corporations now have the same inalienable rights to removing incriminating evidence?

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.

Re:WWSCOUTUSDO by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 00:55 · Score: 1

This is the EU, companies aren't granted human rights over here and this is based on the right to privacy
Re:WWSCOUTUSDO by Luckyo · 2014-05-13 02:30 · Score: 1

It's not about spending money. It's about not giving money.
You'd be surprised just how powerful latter is as a tool against capitalists in comparison to the former.

Definitely good, but there are two sides by scsirob · 2014-05-13 00:51 · Score: 2

I can't help wonder what happens is a person who wants to be forgotten is referred to by someone else. Removing search results regarding some particular person may mean unintentional removal of content that someone else created and want visible.

--
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB

Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:13 · Score: 5, Informative

There's been a lot of FUD and confusion about this particular law on Slashdot, some people seem to think you can just somehow use your bat signal to say "I want to be forgotten on everything online ever!" but it's more simplistic than that.
What it does, is gives you the right to go to a company, that is storing information on you, and ask that they remove it. Nothing more, nothing less. That means if Google has indexed search results and their index includes information on you they simply have to remove that from their index - they do not have to go to the sites they indexed and asked them to remove the information too or any such thing, it's up to you to contact each specific company and the company must oblige.
This isn't really as big a deal as often made out, there was an argument you already had this right to an extent in many jurisdictions such as under the data protection act in the UK, which states that companies may not be passed information on you without your consent, so unless you gave it to them in the first place or consented to someone else giving it to them then they shouldn't be holding it regardless.
This law just formalises that and makes it clear that that remains true even in the age of user generated content, it simply makes it clear that companies can't shirk their data protection rules by saying "but a user gave us that content!" or "but a machine gathered that information!".
I don't believe this creates the hardship that it's claimed it creates, if companies were adhering to the likes of the UK's data protection act in the first place (which stems back to 1998) then they should've had procedures in place for over a decade and a half now to delete personal details that they had no legal right to hold.
If there are concerns about other content being deleted at the same time then that's not a problem with the law, but entirely a problem with how companies choose to go about eliminating data that should no longer be held.
If I have entered no agreement with a company, if a company is not acting as a data processor for a data controller I do have an agreement, and if I have not myself passed personal data to a company, then they never had a legal right (apart from under a handful of very specific exceptions) to hold it in the first place. The only extension this adds is that it makes it clear that you can also retroactively have information removed even if they did have the right to hold it in the past - even this existed in the likes of the DPA though, that companies shouldn't hold it for longer than necessary for the agreed purpose or when a data subject has ceased their relationship with the firm. The problem with that part it was never explicit as to exactly how long a company could hold data on you after that point so it was down to a fairly arbitrary decision by a court.
Honestly, I don't see the problem, if a company doesn't have control of the data it owns to be able to delete data it shouldn't hold on request then it's not fit to be holding any kind of data in the first place.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 01:35 · Score: 1

What it does, is gives you the right to go to a company, that is storing information on you, and ask that they remove it. Nothing more, nothing less. That means if Google has indexed search results and their index includes information on you they simply have to remove that from their index
Except, when Google re-crawls the interwebs, they find the data again.
When someone else puts up a page detailing what you did, that will get crawled.
This will completely fail when you discover that while you might have the legal right to tell internet companies to forget you, you don't have the legal right to compel me to forget you, or to honestly report facts.
There will literally end up being thousands (if not millions) of exceptions they have to track and maintain. Every time they find new content, they'll have to check it against a huge black list, figure out if this refers to John Smith #1 (who has tried to exercise his right to be forgotten) and John Smith #2 (who hasn't).
This is internet filtering on a large scale, will be about as effective as most of the nanny filters they have out there (which are in general incompetently managed, incomplete, and full of errors).
Depending on what you are trying to be forgotten for, there may be a public interest in the data. If you are a convicted child molester, WTF gives you the right to hide this fact?
This will become an unworkable mess, will fail utterly, and will mostly be abused by people who expect companies to go around deleting every reference to their drunk-driving arrest because it makes them look bad. And, I'm sorry, but if the information is factual, on what basis can you suppress facts?
Technology simply doesn't work this way, and the courts are seldom qualified to understand what it can and can't do.
I understand why the court thinks it is a good idea. But I also understand there's simply no bloody way this will ever actually work.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:52 · Score: 1

The wayback machine could reasonably argue the public interest exception.
Search engines don't have to do anything fanciful other than adhere to take down requests when they receive them.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:56 · Score: 1

Google already do much of this with DMCA notices, child porn sites and so forth anyway so it's not exactly a new problem contrary to your claims that it can't work. Obviously it can, because it does. Google can already prevent re-indexing.
But regardless it's a manual process, Google just have to remove it when you request, that's all, nothing more, nothing less. I suspect if they keep reindexing it in the exact same way after it's been removed then sure they may face a contempt of court charge then, but fundamentally it really doesn't put any greater burden on them than they already suffer through existing issues.
Re: Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:58 · Score: 1

It can just be a manual process, that's how it works in most companies that already adhere to data protection laws.
God only knows it's not as if Google doesn't have the resources to staff an operation like this or invest in research into trying to automate it if it doesn't want to staff it.
It's entirely upto Google how it wants to go about it but ultimately it's got the resources and the talent.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 02:02 · Score: 1

I don't think they are, but it achieves the goal for all intents and purposes.
Though the fact that it would be a breach of the law if they didn't actually delete is probably enough of a deterrent in most cases. One leak or whistleblower and they're on the hook for damages.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by ljw1004 · 2014-05-13 02:07 · Score: 1

Except the wayback machine ALREADY responds to requests to delete pages (via robots.txt), and when it gets one it deletes the entire history of that page as well.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-13 02:51 · Score: 4, Informative

What it does, is gives you the right to go to a company, that is storing information on you, and ask that they remove it. Nothing more, nothing less. That means if Google has indexed search results and their index includes information on you they simply have to remove that from their index - they do not have to go to the sites they indexed and asked them to remove the information too or any such thing, it's up to you to contact each specific company and the company must oblige.
Oh, is that all? So the data is still there, except the most popular search engine on the planet can't list it. Wow, that's a relief. Here I thought there was censorship of public information going on, but clearly there isn't. (For the impaired, yes, this is sarcasm.)
From the article:

The case itself occurred after a Spanish man (Mario Costeja Gonzalez) complained that the detail of an auction notice for his former home, which was repossessed after he failed to pay his taxes, appeared in Google's search results.
The notice itself was made public on the third-party website (twice via a newspaper called La Vanguardia) and Mr Gonzalez wanted the source material edited and the Google result removed because the proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years, thus he felt as though the reference to them was now "entirely irrelevant".
Mercifully the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, which correctly ruled that the information in question had been lawfully published by it. But the AEPD then ruled that Google should still delete the related references to the page, which Google perhaps understandably viewed as unfair because the information was already in the public domain, and so began the court battle until today's ECJ verdict.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 02:54 · Score: 1

Your name by itself isn't classed as personally sensitive information.
Besides, if you post it then you're implicitly giving permission for them to hold that information so it's obviously not then held by them without your permission is it? So even if you extend your idea of posting some of your personal details along with your name in a comments section then that's still your own fault.
Really, it doesn't require much thought. You're either stupid or... no nevermind, you're just stupid.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 03:01 · Score: 1

I'm not entirely sure what you're being sarcastic about or what point you were actually trying to make with your quote?
Newspapers have long been deemed to be public record, and so of course it shouldn't be censored. Public record can comfortably sit behind the public interest defence. But Google is a business that makes money providing services based on public record, that does not in itself make it public record, and so it becomes difficult for it to make a case for public interest - it's tried to make this case and failed, hence the ruling.
See my comments elsewhere - this is the same thing that credit reference agencies have had to deal with for years, long before this law existed (because they're one of the few industries that had data protection exemptions giving them access to people's data without having to get permission first). If you have a bankruptcy filing against you then that sits in public record until the end of time, but credit reference agencies can't use this information past a certain period because whilst there is a clear public interest defence in maintaining public record, there is no such public interest defence in allowing corporations to profit off now out of date irrelevant mistakes from long ago.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Jason+Levine · 2014-05-13 03:08 · Score: 1

I think part of the problem is that some of us still remember the two German Killers who tried to get Wikipedia to remove the entries listing them and the crimes they committed as part of a "right to be forgotten." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0
Thankfully, it looks like Wikipedia is still listing the names. If this "right to be forgotten" is upheld, how long until it is used to erase past misdeeds from online sources? What is the limit to the power to erase bad things about you online? If I harass someone and that person makes a post about it, can I sue them to erase the post over my "right to be forgotten"? Does this extend to companies? Can a corporation sue to remove all mentions of an industrial accident because they settled in the courts over it and thus are demanding that it "be forgotten"?

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 03:19 · Score: 1

They've done a decent job of writing the law so it essentially comes down to a question of weighing public interest against the right to privacy. In difficult cases this would have to be decided in court, but most of the time it's going to be clear cut. There's clearly no public interest in keeping some pictures of a drunken teenager doing something stupid up so that she can be bullied into suicide, but there is clear public interest in recording and reporting on the crimes of serial killers.
A lot of people are claiming this will be used for censorship, it will be used for the great and powerful, but that's really not the case - that sort of person is actually at a distinct disadvantage because once you're famous, then all your misdoings become public interest.
Corporations also have no protection whatsoever, because it's entirely aimed at personal data and that similar covers people slagging each other off on forums - if someone says something about you then it's not personal data (unless it explicitly is of course - i.e. unless you post their address or something).
I'm not directing this at you specifically, but the amount of misunderstanding about this law and case on Slashdot is astounding. Yet it's actually one of the more sanely written technology laws we've had in a long long time - it's far better than the EU's cookie law for example. I think it actually does a great job of fairly balancing privacy against freedom of information.
The problem is a lot of people are assuming none of this has been thought through but it's false. It's easy to ask "what if this", "what if that" but if you actually read the proposals and ruling you'll probably be pleasantly surprised to see that all your concerns have been pretty decently covered. The proposed laws went through a pretty hefty consultation and all of this was addressed when that happens. What we have now is legal direction and remaining proposals that take all this into account and reasonably deal with it.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 03:42 · Score: 1

There is a website I made about a deceptive woman who refers kids to abusive programs a while back. All the information on there is true. It serves to warn others away, and it works. Should this person be able to remove *my* website from Google's results? I've already won a WIPO dispute over it.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Ardyvee · 2014-05-13 03:53 · Score: 1

What if I write an article discussing X event about Y person and due to the nature of X event it is for the best interest of the reader to know Z personal information about Y? Can Y then ask to google to stop linking to my article? Can I fight it? Can I get payment for any lost revenue due to loss of traffic (if applicable)? Do I, as the author of the article, even get notified about this?

--
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 04:00 · Score: 1

Privacy is not censoring what other people have to say about you. That's not even mentioning the potential for abuse.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-13 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Newspapers have long been deemed to be public record, and so of course it shouldn't be censored. Public record can comfortably sit behind the public interest defence. But Google is a business that makes money providing services based on public record, that does not in itself make it public record, and so it becomes difficult for it to make a case for public interest - it's tried to make this case and failed, hence the ruling.
This argument is absurd. Newspapers (when not state run) are also commercial interests. One entity publishes things in the public record, and another makes those things searchable. To argue that what Google does is so different and doesn't deserve protection is preposterous, even more so to claim that there isn't censorship going on.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-05-13 05:01 · Score: 1

But Google is a business that makes money providing services based on public record
Do you think Newspapers are doing it for the free hugs or something?
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-05-13 05:03 · Score: 1

There's clearly no public interest in keeping some pictures of a drunken teenager doing something stupid up so that she can be bullied into suicide, but there is clear public interest in recording and reporting on the crimes of serial killers.
Based on what principle did you make that distinction?
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 05:10 · Score: 1

It doesn't matter what my personal morals are or aren't, public interest is a thing that has been defined over the years, and that is an example that would fit into the existing legal definition.
So if you're trying to enter a debate about "Who am I to dictate public interest" or whatever, then you're out of luck. See here for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Currently, I do not see a problem with the definition of public interest. It's not unreasonable.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-13 05:18 · Score: 3, Informative

In the EU simply because some information is public does not mean it's free for all commercial entities to use. For example, if a crime is considered spent (usually some time after punishment ends the guilty party no longer has to declare it to employers) then an employer can't just go looking back through the newspaper archives for the stories reporting it. You can't set up an agency that records crimes and reports them to employers for a fee, even if they are considered legally spent. The information is public, anyone who kept a copy or who can be bothered to visit the library and scan through microfiche can find it, but that doesn't give them a right to use it commercially without that person's consent.
You have to remember that in the EU corporations are not people. They don't get the same freedoms and rights that people do.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-05-13 05:26 · Score: 1

By that definition, the serial killers would be elligible to have the news of their past crime supressed. A representative member of the public would be neither harmed nor benefitted by being aware of that information.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 05:26 · Score: 2

Newspapers report on and record current events, they're a record of facts based on the perspective of the paper in question, and they can be sued for libel if they get it wrong and forced to print corrections.
In contrast, Google has none of this. Would your preference instead be that Google's search facilities are declared public record but it can be sued for libel for everything wrong it indexes about someone? How else do you suggest dealing with incorrect or irrelevant information that is harmful to an individual that is prominent enough to cause them real actual problems?
Okay there is censorship going on, but there's always censorship going on. Using censorship as a go to argument against everything is one of the worst fallacies Slashdot is prone to. There isn't a society on earth that is censorship free, not even the US. As much as some people like to scream this fantasy that they live in a censorship free world and the world would be perfect without censorship it's a nonsense, sometimes it's a necessary evil. The problem with censorship isn't that it exists, it's how it's used. Saying something is censorship doesn't automatically make it bad, being able to censor your troops ability to blab their tactics and positions to the enemy via Twitter is a good thing. So you don't get to magically win an argument by saying "OMG CENSORSHIP" you need to explain why this particular instance of censorship is bad. You need to explain, given an understanding of the law in question - such as the intricacies of the public interest defence and so forth what the problem is exactly with it.
Unless you can come back and tell me why Google should be able to profit from spreading false information and have no obligation to correct or remove then you don't have an argument. What is exceptional about internet companies? everyone else is bound by such law in one way or another, what makes a company like Google special that it should be above the law on issues like this? Again, would you prefer that Google is instead just subject to libel laws like print media and so forth? I know I wouldn't. This law is far far better.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 05:36 · Score: 1

You're missing the subtle difference - newspapers make money by establishing public record. Google makes money off of re-use of public record.
If Google was establishing public record it would be protected, but it's not, it's merely re-using it.
Fundamentally newspapers produce a historic log as time goes by - Google doesn't do this, it represents a pretty much live state of the internet.
It does beg the question whether Google could work round the problem by, rather than deleting links, creating a separate list of links at the bottom of the page saying something like "These are historic search records, and may no longer represent uptodate or relevant information" for sure, but I don't know what use that would be. Perhaps that would at least keep the cry censorship crowd happy whilst also making it clear that the information is not in any way current though and shouldn't be taken as such. I have no idea if it would satisfy the courts though because as I say this is mostly to try and align things with the various data protection acts around which themselves make it illegal to hold personal data longer than necessary (unless it falls under one of the exceptions).
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 05:51 · Score: 2

Yep exactly. As I pointed out in another post credit reference agencies are the perfect example as they've long been living by the standards Google is now being asked to because they were historically one of those with a data protection act exemption.
The problem is a new one because historically most businesses have had absolutely fuck all reason to gather people's embarrassing data and the data protection act made it clear they had no right to as well. The law hasn't played catch up on the internet, but credit reference agencies have long been able to gather personal data without the permission of the data subject however, as you point out, they can still only hold public data like CCJs and pass it on to their clients (i.e. banks doing credit checks) for I believe 7 years in the UK, even though it'll be in public record forever.
As I've been saying all along this isn't a new thing, the only thing that's new is that the law has been clarified to make it clear to companies like Google who think they're special and above the law that they're not. They've been riding a wave of "user generated content" and "automatically generated content" to try and pretend that as a company that somehow exempts them from data protection law, which is a complete farce.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 05:56 · Score: 1

I'm not a judge so I can't pass judgement on that, but I'd wager a judge would disagree with you based on the argument that it's in the interests of the welfare and wellbeing of the public to know if someone has killed multiple people in the past.
It's about balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of the public - is it more important for the individual to be given a second chance, or more important for the public to know that although the person has now been through a rehabilitation programme, they do have a history of killing multiple people? The issue is that if they do still have an urge to kill and the public isn't aware and they make a kill then obviously the public could've avoided that if they'd known about the danger of being near them. To say there's no risk to the public we'd have to be sure that rehabilitation has been successful, and there is not, as far as I'm aware, any 100% sure way of knowing whether that's the case.
I agree it's not simple but again, this is what the judiciary are for, certainly we, here, on Slashdot, can only give personal opinions which is ultimately meaningless, especially if we disagree and start trying to argue who is right and who is wrong :)
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-05-13 06:01 · Score: 1

They've been paroled so there's a legal presumption they're not likely to kill again. That being the case, how is the fact they killed people decades ago at all relelvant to your life, other than morbid curiousity?
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 06:03 · Score: 1

Well it's tricky, as I've said to others who have represented such cases it ultimately would have to come down to a decision in the courts as to whether the public interest in the information is more important than the individuals right to privacy.
If you have continuing evidence of the issue and you're reporting on it then you could claim a public interest defence, but if it's something that happened 10 years ago then there's a question as to whether you should be able to keep trying to ruin her life when she may well have changed. I don't know the intricacies of your case so I can't comment on it, but you can see my point I hope?
Also it depends what information you include about her and whether it falls under the definition of personal information. If you're naming her along with her personal address and so forth you may fall fowl of it being personal information and have to fall back on the public interest defence. If she's acting as a business though in her referrals then you'd be perfectly safe anyway because you'd be commenting on her business and only providing her business details.
There's always going to be some tricky cases, and there's always going to be straightforward ones that don't need court resolution, but as I say, for those that do, that's what the court is for (the real court, not the court of Slashdot :)).
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 07:11 · Score: 1

Yes, but the way i'm reading this, it won't be the courts who decide whether a matter is of public interest, it will be the responsibility of the service providers. Even if this is not the case, at least in the states "public interest" is more often than not interpreted to mean "been discussed by the legislature". In that respect, it seems sort of like the DMCA (automatic take down, then the onus is the user to provide proof it doesn't infringe).

It seems like this provides a haven for cult leaders and those sorts of people who may not fall into the category of "public interest", but would be nevertheless in the public interest to know about. Also, what if I don't want to myself be identified. Again, the cult example is a good one here. Say I post something about David Miscaviage of Scientology or another high up official. Does this now mean they are effectively immune to criticism? Will entire websites such as xenu.net and the like be removed from Google's results because they happen to mention individuals who may not be covered by this "public interest" label? What if I don't have the money to go to court?

It seems to me that Europeans are reflexively taking the "privacy" side of this argument even when in actual fact what is being done has nothing to do with privacy, rather censorship. A person has a right to privacy for sure, but once things do go public, preventing others from talking about it infringes on *their* rights. You can't defend one right by taking away another. If that's what you think you're doing, you need to re-evaluate your definition of rights.

You may disagree with me, but i'd be willing to bet good money that in a few years the abuse of this law will have Europeans switching to VPNs to get unfiltered US internet service.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-13 07:46 · Score: 1

The information is public, anyone who kept a copy or who can be bothered to visit the library and scan through microfiche can find it, but that doesn't give them a right to use it commercially without that person's consent.
It's public but it isn't. Right.

You have to remember that in the EU corporations are not people. They don't get the same freedoms and rights that people do.
A completely irrelevant point, as point the newspaper in question and Google are commercial entities. It's just that one was allowed to keep their page up as a matter of public record, and was disallowed to index it, which is absurd.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-13 07:58 · Score: 1

In contrast, Google has none of this. Would your preference instead be that Google's search facilities are declared public record but it can be sued for libel for everything wrong it indexes about someone?
For this case, it is irrelevant. The information is true, not libel, and already ruled and acknowledged by you to be public record, and the newspaper can leave the page online. Yet you hold that this same "public record" information cannot be indexed by a search engine. That's a farce.

Okay there is censorship going on, but there's always censorship going on. Using censorship as a go to argument against everything is one of the worst fallacies Slashdot is prone to.
At least now you admit there is censorship occurring. And really, censorship is the one of the worst fallacies on Slashdot? Gee, that freedom of speech, so unimportant, hardly worth consideration! Let's just brush the issue under the rug because sometimes censorship is acceptable.

Unless you can come back and tell me why Google should be able to profit from spreading false information and have no obligation to correct or remove then you don't have an argument.
See, now this is one of the worst arguments on Slashdot. Your classic strawman.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-13 08:24 · Score: 1

It's public but it isn't. Right.
No, you pillock, it's public but if you want to provide commercial services that provide that public information to people you have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, e.g. credit reference agencies.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 08:42 · Score: 2

"Yet you hold that this same "public record" information cannot be indexed by a search engine."
But it's just not being indexed, unless you get the definition of data processor as in data protection law then I don't know how else I can explain to you why this is different. There's a specific legal definition, and Google falls foul of it. It's not a farce, a farce would be allowing internet companies like Google to keep being a special case that does not have to adhere to data protection law whilst everyone else in the real world does.
"And really, censorship is the one of the worst fallacies on Slashdot?"
Yes really. It's used like a word that we're automatically supposed to say "Oh well, Reanex said it was censorship so he automatically wins the argument and is right". Yes that's a fucking fallacy, and a very tired one on Slashdot.
"Gee, that freedom of speech, so unimportant, hardly worth consideration! "
And there you go with the fallacy again. Freedom of speech isn't unimportant, but there's not a single jurisdiction on the planet that doesn't impose restrictions on it. The problem is you're arbitrarily ignoring existing restrictions and saying any new ones are automatically wrong. Why? What makes your restrictions right and everyone else's wrong? It's not like freedom of speech has ever been an absolute and is now suddenly being altered, it's just that an existing long established restriction (i.e. limitation of speech that breaches an individuals privacy with no public interest defence) is being clarified as relevant to internet companies despite them thinking they're different, and it's not like there is some pre-existing grand dictation from some power up high about what is and isn't acceptable. It's arbitrary and no one person gets to dictate the value of it or what it should include - society does that, and that's exactly what is happening here. This law is actually very popular amongst the general public because people value privacy over and above the right to breach privacy.
So it's not even a new type of censorship, it's just clarification that yes, the law applies to everyone. Your censorship argument is pretty weak and as I said, it's populist nonsense. You're crying censorship under the pretence it's an absolute that is now only just being violated, it's not, it never has been.
"See, now this is one of the worst arguments on Slashdot. Your classic strawman."
So I guess you can't actually justify it then given that you're dodging the bullet with another classic cry of "strawman" without apparently understanding what that even means? If you knew what it meant then you'd spot the almost comical irony in your use of it - your strawman is a strawman, designed to distract from the fact that you couldn't answer the question. If it wasn't born of stupidity it'd be comic genius.
Your argument thus far boils down to the idea that freedom of speech trumps all, your view must therefore logically be that no one should have a secret card pin, password, non-public finances, private sexuality, private contact details and so on. If I ask you for all these things will you post them? if not then why are you engaging in censorship? If you think that censorship is okay for you in this case, in refusing to make every detail I have asked for about your life public then why is it not okay for someone else who has had those details posted against their will publicly to similarly censor?
I really don't think you've thought your argument through unless you can justify why your details should remain secret, but others should not also enjoy that right if it's been taken away from them against their will.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 08:53 · Score: 1

You can criticise scientology because it's an organisation, you can criticise the leaders because they're acting as public figures in leading that organisation.
Again this is not new stuff, this sort of thing has long been established for the press already but the press have not been held back in reporting about these things.
"You can't defend one right by taking away another."
So what happens if two rights are diametrically opposed? The right to privacy is in direct conflict with the right to free speech.
This has always been the problem with rights, sometimes they do conflict and then you have to figure out a resolution. If you push towards absolute free speech and view any censorship as bad then you eliminate the right to privacy, if you push towards privacy then you cripple free speech. It's therefore a nonsense to pretend the two rights can exist absolutely intact so the suggestion you can't defend one right by taking away another is nonsense - one has to be restricted in balance with the other, there's simply no escaping that.
As I said to another guy, if you think privacy has no place if it risks infringing on absolute free speech then will you give me every single personal detail about your life? if not then why not? that's censorship. You probably agree that you would like many of your personal details to remain private. Why would you deny others that right? You seem to be suggesting that it's about whether you're unfortunate enough to get your details publicised - that's an easy argument to make, until you're the victim.
No big names are going to be able to make use of this because it'll just create the Streisand effect which will in itself make the whole thing public interest. The only thing this is useful for is some teenage kid being bullied towards suicide getting embarrassing picture of them removed and Joe Average who fucked up long ago wanting the opportunity to leave that mistake behind them and so on and so forth.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by dgriff · 2014-05-13 09:37 · Score: 1

Wow, don't read slashdot much these days and came here looking for some sanity but only see three comments rated 5 of which yours is one. Maybe because it's a European story. But anyway, I think you are being incredibly naive about this. What is a newspaper but a repository of stories about other people. This gives those people the ability to make such stories disappear. This is a law that the rich and powerful are going to love. Remember when the Tory party removed all David Cameron's old speeches from their website because (presumably) it might get embarrassing having their promises quoted back at them? Well you ain't seen nothing yet. This kind of thing makes China look liberal. Madness.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-13 09:54 · Score: 1

But it's just not being indexed, unless you get the definition of data processor as in data protection law then I don't know how else I can explain to you why this is different.
It's simply being indexed. Your claim is that because the information is about a person, even though it is "public" it shouldn't be allowed to be indexed.
I understand the point of the data protection laws, but I feel that they are being stretched to extreme cases. It's one thing to argue that private business shouldn't aggregate all your transactions and browsing history, as commonly occurs in the United States. It's quite another to say something can be published as a matter of public record by one entity, but not allowed to be indexed by another.

Yes really. It's used like a word that we're automatically supposed to say "Oh well, Reanex said it was censorship so he automatically wins the argument and is right". Yes that's a fucking fallacy, and a very tired one on Slashdot.
No, it's not a fallacy. It does not automatically win the argument, but it's a valid concern that deserves careful consideration. The arguments given as to why this particular censorship is ok are lacking.

So I guess you can't actually justify it then given that you're dodging the bullet with another classic cry of "strawman" without apparently understanding what that even means?
I perfectly understand what strawman means, and it applies to you. Rather than addressing why your argument wasn't a strawman, you just try to pin the label on me instead. Your argument was a strawman because you were arguing about libel, though this case was about true information that is a matter of public record.

Your argument thus far boils down to the idea that freedom of speech trumps all, your view must therefore logically be that no one should have a secret card pin, password, non-public finances, private sexuality, private contact details and so on.
And again you demonstrate a classic strawman fallacy. I never stated such a position, and in fact I said, "sometimes censorship is acceptable".

I really don't think you've thought your argument through unless you can justify why your details should remain secret, but others should not also enjoy that right if it's been taken away from them against their will.
The issue here is that one website publishes a matter of public record for all the world to see (not secret), yet this same information is not allowed to be indexed, just like any library has searchable indexes into their archives. Try to argue what's actually under debate instead of your strawman positions.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-13 21:09 · Score: 1

"Strawman strawman strawman!"
As I said before, this word isn't a get out clause for situations of "Shit, I can't rationally refute that point". You don't get to just shout it and it makes everything that's wrong about your understanding better. It's not a get out of jail free card when you realise you've backed yourself into a corner and can no longer justify your point.
"It's simply being indexed. Your claim is that because the information is about a person, even though it is "public" it shouldn't be allowed to be indexed."
But it's not simply being indexed is it? It's being made searchable, it's being used for analytics, it's being used to sell ads. You really think Google exists purely for the public good? Of course not, it's a profit making organisation and this is it's profit bread and butter.
You've avoided my question as to why someone should not retrospectively be afforded the right to privacy if someone has had their information publicised against their will even though you presumably believe you have the right to keep stuff secret. I'd genuinely like to know your justification as that's all this law enforces - affording privacy equally and not allowing Google to be a tool used to bypass privacy protections that everyone else is afforded. It's a bit like saying burglary is illegal, but if you've already had your stuff stolen, well, tough shit, you don't get to have it back.
Is the law perfect? no, none ever are. But you cannot rationally dispute that there is some sense to the law in terms of genuine cases where people deserve the right to have their privacy restored without also arguing that no one should ever be allowed any secrets. It's hypocritical nonsense.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-14 03:01 · Score: 1

"Strawman strawman strawman!"
If you wouldn't post strawmen arguments, I wouldn't have to waste my time calling them as such.

As I said before, this word isn't a get out clause for situations of "Shit, I can't rationally refute that point".
I refuted them in that I showed they misrepresented my argument. You haven't shown otherwise.

But it's not simply being indexed is it? It's being made searchable, it's being used for analytics, it's being used to sell ads. You really think Google exists purely for the public good? Of course not, it's a profit making organisation and this is it's profit bread and butter.
Well duh, of course the index is to allow for searches. That Google allows searches of the public Web isn't in dispute. That they are a commercial entity also isn't in dispute. The newspaper that is allowed to publish the so-called public record is also a commercial entity that I presume sells ads and does all the nefarious-sounding things that you make profit sound like. The difference is that one is allowed to publish this so-called public information, and another is not allowed to index to it. We've been over this.

You've avoided my question as to why someone should not retrospectively be afforded the right to privacy if someone has had their information publicised against their will even though you presumably believe you have the right to keep stuff secret.
I didn't avoid it. I correctly labeled it as a strawman, and I explicitly told you that what's under concern here is not a secret, but a matter of public record. Try reading the responses and responding to the actual argument. You can't argue this is a secret when one site is allowed to publish it on the Web. It is then absurd to compare this to any unpublished, private secrets that I may hold.
Since you can't make a cogent argument, and I'm repeating myself a lot, I'm done here.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Xest · 2014-05-14 03:06 · Score: 1

"If you wouldn't post strawmen arguments, I wouldn't have to waste my time calling them as such."
Strawman.
"I refuted them in that I showed they misrepresented my argument. You haven't shown otherwise."
Strawman.
"Well duh, of course the index is to allow for searches. That Google allows searches of the public Web isn't in dispute. That they are a commercial entity also isn't in dispute. The newspaper that is allowed to publish the so-called public record is also a commercial entity that I presume sells ads and does all the nefarious-sounding things that you make profit sound like. The difference is that one is allowed to publish this so-called public information, and another is not allowed to index to it. We've been over this."
Strawman.
"I didn't avoid it. I correctly labeled it as a strawman, and I explicitly told you that what's under concern here is not a secret, but a matter of public record. Try reading the responses and responding to the actual argument. You can't argue this is a secret when one site is allowed to publish it on the Web. It is then absurd to compare this to any unpublished, private secrets that I may hold."
Strawman.
"Since you can't make a cogent argument, and I'm repeating myself a lot, I'm done here."
Strawman.
Yay, I win.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Psyborgue · 2014-05-14 04:03 · Score: 1

You're missing the point. If you ask me private stuff, *and I am stupid enough to tell you*, of course you're free to do what you will with it. You're removing personal responsibility from the equation. Likewise a corporation is free to do whatever they want with information they collect so long as they do not violate any contract with me in doing so. These are often called "privacy policies". If the privacy policy says "we can sell or publish your data", then I probably should be wary of what I post. On other other hand, if they say they will keep things private, and they don't then, they have a potential lawsuit on their hands.

And you're probably right that big names won't get away with abusing this, but plenty of small fish will, until they, aided by their "privacy" eventually become big fish. I could rattle off the names of hundreds of smaller cults to you with lesser known leaders who I can pretty much guarantee will abuse this law if given the chance to. You're also neglecting to consider that forbidding a person from mentioning, say in scientology's case, the name of an "auditor" or a witness to an event, could potentially take an entire website down. What you're saying is that it's only OK to mention somebody who is a "public figure". Anybody else and that whole page goes poof from the visible internet.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by david_thornley · 2014-05-14 04:32 · Score: 1

Unless you can come back and tell me why Google should be able to profit from spreading false information and have no obligation to correct or remove then you don't have an argument.

See, now this is one of the worst arguments on Slashdot. Your classic strawman.

There is false information about me on the net, lies that are potentially harmful to me (although almost certainly not actually harmful; this is more of a problem for people with worse lies about them on the net). (What I know of is in my "libel" directory, in case I ever need to do something about it.) There are companies like Google that will take those lies and publish them for a profit.
It's long been held in the US that you can't defend against a libel charge by pointing out that you're repeating somebody else. Therefore, if Google shows the lies in response to a search, and that winds up harming me, then Google has libeled me and I can legitimately sue. (Note also that Google does publish things with a reckless disregard to their truth or falsity.) I do have a legal right to have Google not libel me, regardless of whether I notify them beforehand.
The EU case is not quite that, since the information published was true, but it's still a matter of publishing information that legally should not be published.
So, I'm curious why you think that argument a straw man. It seems sound to me, unless you're going to reject the whole idea of libel as an offense.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by david_thornley · 2014-05-14 04:37 · Score: 1

You seem to be assuming that, if I have information on you, it's my information and I can do as I please with it. This is, I believe, mostly true in the US, but not in the EU. This is an EU case, and people there have some control on information about them.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Specter · 2014-05-14 05:33 · Score: 1

Your complaint isn't with Google, it's with whomever is publishing the information you claim is false. In fact you should be writing Google a big 'ole thank you letter for allowing you to find this false information on the Internet so easily.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-14 08:00 · Score: 1

"Unless you can come back and tell me why Google should be able to profit from spreading false information and have no obligation to correct or remove then you don't have an argument."

So, I'm curious why you think that argument a straw man.
I've already explained it numerous times, but since you are a different poster I will try once more:
Definition: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted "

The EU case is not quite that, since the information published was true,
Oh look, you already know! Since this case is not about libel, I do not have to defend Google being able to profit from libel. I could have a position against that or not. It is irrelevant to this debate.

but it's still a matter of publishing information that legally should not be published.
No, not quite. The same court that ruled that Google couldn't index the site also ruled that the newspaper hosting the information did not have to take it down, as it was a matter of public record, as I quoted from the article in my original post.
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by david_thornley · 2014-05-15 06:36 · Score: 1

That's like saying that, if a newspaper repeats harmful lies about me to a large public, my complaint is actually with whoever started the lies. In the US legal system, that isn't true. Repeating libel is libel. Google is perfectly happy about distributing the lies to anybody who asks about me. That's publishing.
Now, I'm not saying I have any respect or liking for the original liar, but I was aware of the lies as they were made and didn't need Google to find out.
Suppose that somebody else lied about me and I never heard about it. The world and the internet are big places, and the odds are it would never affect me in the slightest. Except that Google (and other search engines) publicize it, not only notifying me but everybody else who searches on my name. Why does it benefit me to find who the liar is more than it hurts me that other people of importance to me might believe the lies?

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by david_thornley · 2014-05-15 06:37 · Score: 1

So the problem you have with this is that you think EU laws illogical? And you have no problem with the idea that Google might be legally forced to delete links, just a problem with this specific case? In that case we're largely in agreement.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Definitely good, but there are two sides by Raenex · 2014-05-15 07:51 · Score: 1

Right.

Bad cases make bad law by davecb · 2014-05-13 00:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

Courts are based on both sides arguing their case: Google needs to gain standing and appeal.

--
davecb@spamcop.net

Re:Bad cases make bad law by dcw3 · 2014-05-13 00:59 · Score: 1

Appeal to who? According to this, the court making this decision is the highest in Europe:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:Bad cases make bad law by davecb · 2014-05-13 01:11 · Score: 1

The court, of course: they purportedly complained that Google hadn't made their case. That's why I mentioned "standing". Supreme courts of different jurisdictions have differing rules about rehearings, but almost all require an application to be considered, just because they are supreme.

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Bad cases make bad law by davecb · 2014-05-13 01:23 · Score: 1

Followup: looking at the ruling, there's a contradiction between "processing" and "search", where Google has failed to argue that their result ranking is either fair or dictated by necessary. This may take an additional case, to distinguish when one can legitimately ask to be removed and when one can't. I'm guessing Google will argue that they would have had to to engage in at least malfeasance to qualify for removal of results (;-))

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Bad cases make bad law by Grumbleduke · 2014-05-14 04:41 · Score: 1

Erm... Google did have standing. You can read the judgment of the court here.
Google was represented and their arguments are referred to throughout the ruling. Also represented were the Spanish, Greek, Polish, Austrian and Italian Governments, and the European Commission.
I don't think that it is possible to appeal Grand Chamber judgments in preliminary ruling applications such as this, but I could be wrong.
Re:Bad cases make bad law by davecb · 2014-05-14 07:59 · Score: 1

Regrettable... I had taken the " Google failed to argue that such a decision would be unfair because the information was already legally in the public domain." as an indication that they had not been heard, rather than that they had not made the point. Thanks for the pointer!

[81] However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, that balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.

... suggests that they might make a "correct results" argument, to further narrow the case and exclude companies "scrubbing" their reputations via takedown orders.

--
davecb@spamcop.net
Re:Bad cases make bad law by Grumbleduke · 2014-05-14 08:16 · Score: 1

I think that Google did make that point; it is Question 2(d) of the reference, and dealt with in paragraphs 62-88. I think whoever wrote that line meant to say that they'd failed to convince the Court of that point, rather than that they hadn't made it.
Imho this ruling isn't as "evil" or "censorship-based" as some commenters have made out, but also isn't nearly as pro-individual privacy.
As with most EU law, it comes down to proportionality; balancing the gain to the individual's right to privacy by removing the search result against the trouble to remove it (very low weighting) and the public's freedom of expression/right to know it (can vary).
In theory this is great; you and I can get the awkward things we did when we were young scrubbed before they turn up with job applications, but evil corporations can't use it to bury their dirty secrets, or politicians to hide uncomfortable pasts.
In practice, however, this kind of balancing is very expensive to do - and the Court seems to be encouraging direct claimant/search engine interactions (rather than going through the domestic courts), so we could see search engines just agreeing to take down everything they're told because they don't want to pay to fight or even examine the claims - as with defamation or copyright claims.
[It's also important to remember that this is a ruling on a 20-year-old law, the law technically hasn't changed, this is just the first time the CJEU has been asked whether search engines "process" personal information etc..]

pure political bullshit by Connie_Lingus · 2014-05-13 00:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

so by the wave of legislator's arms, all information about us online is simply going to disappear?

i call shenanigans.

i mean really...do these people surf the same web as i do?

--
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.

Re:pure political bullshit by QuasiSteve · 2014-05-13 01:01 · Score: 4, Informative

You could try reading TFS, if not TFA.
They specifically point out that even if Site X has a legitimate reason to have that personal information online, it does not automatically mean that Service Y (in this case, Google), has a legitimate reason to process that data in the ways they do.
Site X will still be available. It might not be easy to find it, of course, but cue the "the internet routes around censorship" mantra.
Re:pure political bullshit by Richard_at_work · 2014-05-13 01:01 · Score: 1

By the same merit, some people want a similar sweep of the legislators arm to stop tracking on the internet, and as many of those people post here I'm pretty sure they surf the same web as we do.
Re:pure political bullshit by Connie_Lingus · 2014-05-13 01:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

so legislators are going to start deciding what public information search companies are able to aggregate?
uhhh....no thanks...ill opt out of that reality.

--
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Re:pure political bullshit by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:29 · Score: 2

"so by the wave of legislator's arms, all information about us online is simply going to disappear?"
No, but upon receipt of a formal request it's not unreasonable to expect that companies have control of the data they display on the internet and can hence delete it from their services. Because this is what it's actually about, not some fanciful idea of being able to declare in some unspecified place that all information about you on the internet should vanish, an idea that seems to have been magicked up in the minds of some Slashdotters but bears no resemblance to what this law actually says and does.
Honestly, if companies can make a profit off of harvesting and displaying personal details, often against the will of the person in question, then it's really not too much to ask that when the subject asks for it to be removed that they do so. If someone breaks into your house and steals your personal photos, financial records, and whatever else and posts it all online and Google harvests it up with it's automated systems and makes a bit of money from ad impressions for people that stumble across it I don't think it's really a lot to ask that you also have the right to tell them to delete it the fuck off their servers when you find it too.
There's only a spurious argument that they had any legal basis to harvest this data in the first place given that doing so is a breach of most nation's data protection laws, so it's even less to ask that they implement procedures to make themselves compliant with long established existing data protection law.
Which is really all this does. So no, these people don't use the same web you do. They use the web where they actually read TFA, understand the issues, know what's practical, fair, and possible, and know what they're on about.
Re:pure political bullshit by QuasiSteve · 2014-05-13 01:32 · Score: 1

Yes - and while it's terribly clichÃ©, I need only point to child pornography materials to show that this is already happening, and generally opted into (by both the general populace, and by businesses themselves, voluntarily).
Re:pure political bullshit by Connie_Lingus · 2014-05-13 01:36 · Score: 1

please tell me you are not equating child pornography to publicly available information....please???

--
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Re:pure political bullshit by QuasiSteve · 2014-05-13 01:40 · Score: 1

Okay, bomb making materials, then. (various governments)
Or Nazi propaganda materials. (Germany)
Or anything that tends to tick people of a certain religion off (various governments)
Or anything that offends a certain king (various governments).
I'm sure we can find something along the scale of publicly available material (and yes, child pornography is also publicly available, even if not 'a matter of official public record') where we can both contemplate whether that material not being easily found through services is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Re:pure political bullshit by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, not correct. It's about personal data. This is already something that's well defined and well understood.
Your argument amounts to the idea that nothing should ever be private, which is an even more stupid idea.
Re:pure political bullshit by Connie_Lingus · 2014-05-13 01:52 · Score: 2

its all just government censorship....don't you see that??
the promise of the internet has always been information wants to free.
man, slashdot is changing nowadays...i can't believe that i am even debating this point on this particular forum...wow.

--
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Re:pure political bullshit by gstoddart · 2014-05-13 01:53 · Score: 1

I need only point to child pornography materials to show that this is already happening
And we need only point out that it's being incompetently ran, has tons of false positives (and therefore false negatives), and frequently leads to stupid scenarios like sex education and other legitimate stuff being blocked while the stuff it's supposed to block still gets through.
These kinds of filters simply don't work at a technical level without blocking legitimate stuff.
Hell, at a company I used to work for their internet filter (Blue Coat or Blue Goat or something like that) routinely blocked things like yoga studios as varying degrees of totally stupid things. Because the people who run these things have terrible source data, don't check anything, and don't give a damn when they're wrong.
You would have to demonstrate that these things actually work 100% of the time to convince anybody that just because someone passes a law that the technology actually delivers as promised. Because, the reality is, the track records of these things is pretty lousy.
It gives the illusion of doing something, but it certainly isn't effective.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:pure political bullshit by Sique · 2014-05-13 02:04 · Score: 1

It gets a little deeper into European privacy law. It is actually forbidden to compile personal information into a searchable database without the explicit permission of the person the data is about. Exceptions to this rule have to be specified by law. So yes, the information is in the public, and you are allowed to spread them, but you are not allowed to collect them into a database. If Google presents the information in a list of search results, this counts as including the information into a database, and that's not ok.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:pure political bullshit by Xest · 2014-05-13 02:07 · Score: 1

I think when he referred to CP he wasn't talking about filter, but the fact that sites like Google already remove links to such sites from their indexes as soon as it's been pointed out to them.
And that does work 100% of the time. Because it's not hard to check an index is what someone is claiming it is and hit 'remove' on it once that confirmation has occured.
This is not the same thing as filtering, which I agree is a broken non-workable idea.
Re:pure political bullshit by Xest · 2014-05-13 02:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Slashdot has always supported the idea that information wants to be free, but it's also supported the idea that privacy matters.
It's also true that not all information should be free, most people don't want their password, debit card pin, or private conversations to be "free".
I mean, what is your argument, that everything the NSA and GCHQ did is fine, and of course they should be able to follow your every conversation, because of course, information wants to be free? I mean why shouldn't GCHQ and the NSA hold all your information, information wants to be free, it wants them to know everything about us!
Should Slashdot remove Anonymous Coward and make everyone post with their real names, because we should all get to know who exactly they are, because information wants to be free? Maybe you should have to publicly post your address and telephone number and e-mail and workplace details and salary too. Are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and make a start?
Yes information wants to be free, except when we're talking about privacy, and privacy concerns should trump that.
Re:pure political bullshit by QuasiSteve · 2014-05-13 02:27 · Score: 1

its all just government censorship....don't you see that??
Of course I see that - the debate would be about whether that is always undesirable.

the promise of the internet has always been information wants to free.
To which I would suggest that yes, you always find it undesirable.
Unfortunately, that's not the reality we live in. Though there's always darknets.
Re:pure political bullshit by dave420 · 2014-05-13 03:55 · Score: 1

More nonsense. But it's stenvar, so why am I surprised?
Re:pure political bullshit by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-13 04:03 · Score: 2

so legislators are going to start deciding what public information search companies are able to aggregate?
Yes. In the past if you had a criminal conviction it might have been written about in the paper. Years later you have served your time and the conviction is spent, do you don't have to tell employers about it. That helps reformed criminals who have not re-offended to re-integrate into society. The only way and employer could find out is to go to a library and scan through tens of thousands of microfiche looking for your name by hand.
Now Google will pull up that news site article from 1998 in a few clicks. The original intent of having a conviction spent in the eyes of the law has been subverted (unintentionally), so the law needs to be updated.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:pure political bullshit by houghi · 2014-05-13 05:13 · Score: 2

I want to opt out of them gathering MY data. That is not possible now.
And this is not about just putting a robot.txt on my website.
And limiting companies in favour of people? Yes please. If there is a choice between people and companies, governements should pick the people each and every time. They are made by the people, for the people.
Hey: "For the people. By the people." could be a great motto for a governement.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:pure political bullshit by CowTipperGore · 2014-05-13 06:02 · Score: 1

Honestly, if companies can make a profit off of harvesting and displaying personal details, often against the will of the person in question, then it's really not too much to ask that when the subject asks for it to be removed that they do so. If someone breaks into your house and steals your personal photos, financial records, and whatever else and posts it all online and Google harvests it up with it's automated systems and makes a bit of money from ad impressions for people that stumble across it I don't think it's really a lot to ask that you also have the right to tell them to delete it the fuck off their servers when you find it too.
Your analogy is way off the mark. This case (and other examples that have made the news) are about citizens who wish for factual but embarrassing parts of their history to be harder to find. Facts that are considered public record. Facts that they have no standing to actually remove, but this ruling says they can shutdown someone who helps make this public information accessible. Instead, you offer a hypothetical example of a crime and detailed financial records illegally posted online. In your ill considered example, we would go to the place hosting the very-not-public information and get it removed. A search engine would not be part of the process because the source data would go away.

There's only a spurious argument that they had any legal basis to harvest this data in the first place given that doing so is a breach of most nation's data protection laws, so it's even less to ask that they implement procedures to make themselves compliant with long established existing data protection law.
Actually, you are exactly backwards - there is only a spurious argument that they have no legal basis to index this data. If the argument was instead that Google had cached the original page and had no right to do so, I'd give you some leeway. But if the argument is about harvesting the existence of public information, your argument is illogical. Seriously, you are arguing that this guy's failure to pay taxes and house repossession should remain as public data, that some businesses (newspapers) should be able to publish and index the information, but that others should have no right to index the fact that the data exists elsewhere.
Re:pure political bullshit by Xest · 2014-05-13 09:03 · Score: 1

"Your analogy is way off the mark. This case (and other examples that have made the news) are about citizens who wish for factual but embarrassing parts of their history to be harder to find. Facts that are considered public record. Facts that they have no standing to actually remove"
Well yes they do have standing to remove them, because that's what happened. Even without this ruling and the proposed right to be forgotten laws non-internet based companies are already held to this standard. You can hold such data for public record but you cannot make commercial use of this outside of the purpose of public record beyond a reasonable timeframe, which is what Google is doing. A credit reference agency could no longer hold the data in question because it's already past the period in which such companies can process this data.
"Seriously, you are arguing that this guy's failure to pay taxes and house repossession should remain as public data, that some businesses (newspapers) should be able to publish and index the information, but that others should have no right to index the fact that the data exists elsewhere."
Yes, exactly as it works for non-internet companies. No company can for example take this information and build a database about people who have failed to pay taxes if the indiscretion was beyond a certain time ago. That's already against the law under European data protection laws. Internet companies just believe they're a special case whom the law doesn't apply to because "it's on the internet".
People like you seem oblivious to the way data protection law already works in Europe and many other places across the globe. You're arguing against laws that have been around for almost two decades for non-internet companies. What makes internet companies special in terms of not having to play by the same rules everyone else has to?
Re:pure political bullshit by CowTipperGore · 2014-05-13 10:19 · Score: 1

Facts that are considered public record. Facts that they have no standing to actually remove.

Well yes they do have standing to remove them, because that's what happened. Even without this ruling and the proposed right to be forgotten laws non-internet based companies are already held to this standard.

No, you are wrong:
The notice itself was made public on the third-party website (twice via a newspaper called La Vanguardia) and Mr Gonzalez wanted the source material edited...because the proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years, thus he felt as though the reference to them was now "entirely irrelevant". Mercifully the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, which correctly ruled that the information in question had been lawfully published by it.
The information is remaining in the public record. Google just can't help people find it.

A credit reference agency could no longer hold the data in question because it's already past the period in which such companies can process this data.
Another terrible analogy. Google is not holding or processing financial data. Do you really not understand how an index works? Do you believe that it would be illegal for a library to have a catalog of newspapers with an index that references the La Vanguardia article about this guy? And that it makes sense that they would have to destroy their index so that no visitors could find the article?

Yes, exactly as it works for non-internet companies. No company can for example take this information and build a database about people who have failed to pay taxes if the indiscretion was beyond a certain time ago. That's already against the law under European data protection laws. Internet companies just believe they're a special case whom the law doesn't apply to because "it's on the internet". People like you seem oblivious to the way data protection law already works in Europe and many other places across the globe.

I openly admit I am not an expert in EU data protection law. I am not arguing that the European model of privacy and data protection is wrong or flawed. In fact, I appreciate the attempt to give citizens some control over their data, unlike the American corporate model. I posted primarily because your attempts at logic and use of analogies are horribly flawed. Your "Internet companies don't want to be follow the law" strawman is off-base. Trying to treat an Internet search engine like a credit agency for purposes of data collection concern is illogical.

You're arguing against laws that have been around for almost two decades for non-internet companies. What makes internet companies special in terms of not having to play by the same rules everyone else has to?
These directives reflect the realities of that specific period of time in which they were drafted. The law does not work in a pre-computer world - it is designed to let people have some control over the electronic representations of themselves collected by others. The EU recognizes that it also was not built with considerations for the Internet and are currently attempting to update it. Perhaps, by the letter of the pre-Internet law, search engines are processing personal data. There has been little judicial guidance on how the early-80's guidelines fit in today's world. It is not as cut and dried as you want to pretend. It is not obvious that that the 1980 EU would have considered an electronic index of external data the same as a credit agency. Pretending otherwise is to ignore the complex reality of this scenario.
Re:pure political bullshit by Xest · 2014-05-13 20:52 · Score: 1

"The information is remaining in the public record. Google just can't help people find it.
Right so I'm not actually wrong then am I? You're agreeing with me that the case clearly allows public record to remain, but commercial use beyond that not to. Again, this is exactly as it's always been.
In fact, the right to be forgotten law isn't actually law yet, this particular case is exactly what I've been describing - the same law applied to everyone else now applied to internet companies anyway.
"Another terrible analogy. Google is not holding or processing financial data. Do you really not understand how an index works?"
I know exactly how indexing works on a technical level, but "data processing" is a specific term recognised in law and what Google is doing is classed as data processing. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
It's pretty clear that Google is taking the data and processing it to produce search results based on it. That is like it or not, a form of processing as recognised in law.
"Do you believe that it would be illegal for a library to have a catalog of newspapers with an index that references the La Vanguardia article about this guy? And that it makes sense that they would have to destroy their index so that no visitors could find the article?"
Well no, because libraries are not:
a) Processing the data
b) Using the data for profit
c) Are recognised as an institution for storage of public record
No combination of these is breached by libraries, whereas they are by Google, and that's the problem.
"I openly admit I am not an expert in EU data protection law."
And therein lies the problem. Look I sympathise with your argument, I really do, but I do understand European data protection law very well, I have to because I work at an organisation that does store extremely sensitive data and has long has these laws applied to it.
"Your "Internet companies don't want to be follow the law" strawman is off-base. Trying to treat an Internet search engine like a credit agency for purposes of data collection concern is illogical."
You only think this is illogical precisely because you don't understand European data protection law (or perhaps data protection law in general) and the businesses I describe. Personal data is a well defined thing in law, and so is data processing, unfortunately whatever you may or may not think of the law the fact is that the data was clearly defined as personal data, and Google clearly was processing it as defined in law, and Google clearly did not fall under any of the exemptions (e.g. law enforcement).
I actually do not think you understand how credit reference agencies work, because this is almost exactly the same thing. What they do is gather personal data in public record such as the data mentioned in this case - data on bankruptcies and so forth, and make that searchable, so that 3rd party organisations can perform a search on individuals and acquire this data to perform credit scoring and so forth. I'm sure now I've explained the way in which they work you can see the similarities no?
Effectively the differences are only legal, and in specificity. Google is a generic search engine that can find this and other data, credit reference bureaus are specific search engines that find just this type of data. Credit reference bureaus also only allow, due to legal restrictions a search to be performed at the behest of an end user (or for a handful of exceptions, again, e.g. law enforcement) and may not return (or even store) public data that is deemed to be old enough to be irrelevant. Credit reference agencies would probably love to be able to just make this available at will to anyone doing a search because there'd be far more business for them, but the law doesn't allow it, so why should Google be exempt without any official exemption in law?
Perhaps now, with an explanation and example as to existing companies that hav
Re:pure political bullshit by CowTipperGore · 2014-05-14 01:04 · Score: 1

Right so I'm not actually wrong then am I? You're agreeing with me that the case clearly allows public record to remain, but commercial use beyond that not to. Again, this is exactly as it's always been.
You now have directly contradicted yourself in your responses to me. I even quoted it above to make it easy for you.

I know exactly how indexing works on a technical level, but "data processing" is a specific term recognised in law and what Google is doing is classed as data processing...It's pretty clear that Google is taking the data and processing it to produce search results based on it. That is like it or not, a form of processing as recognised in law.
As I said in my last response, Google's actions likely are considered processing of personal data by a law that written for computer systems prior to the open Internet and free Internet search engines. But, comparing what they do to a credit processing agency indicates you don't understand how one or both works.

Well no, because libraries are not:
a) Processing the data
b) Using the data for profit
c) Are recognised as an institution for storage of public record
No combination of these is breached by libraries, whereas they are by Google, and that's the problem.
In my example, they would be processing the data more so than an Internet search engine, storing as well as indexing the source data. I'm not aware of the specific exemptions that you claimed in points b and c. Perhaps you could point me to where those are clarified in law?

You only think this is illogical precisely because you don't understand European data protection law (or perhaps data protection law in general) and the businesses I describe. Personal data is a well defined thing in law, and so is data processing, unfortunately whatever you may or may not think of the law the fact is that the data was clearly defined as personal data, and Google clearly was processing it as defined in law, and Google clearly did not fall under any of the exemptions (e.g. law enforcement).
Again, I clearly addressed this in my previous post.

I actually do not think you understand how credit reference agencies work, because this is almost exactly the same thing. What they do is gather personal data in public record such as the data mentioned in this case - data on bankruptcies and so forth, and make that searchable, so that 3rd party organisations can perform a search on individuals and acquire this data to perform credit scoring and so forth. I'm sure now I've explained the way in which they work you can see the similarities no?
Credit agencies exist solely to sell access to personal financial records. Much of the data they collect and provide for a fee is not otherwise accessible and would not be considered public data. They do not simply index data held by others; they actually aggregate and store the data. The agencies have quasi-official standing as agents of record for citizen's financial history and credit worthiness. None of this is like what Google or Bing does, at all. Continuing to insist that they are similar in any real fashion is ridicules.

Google is a generic search engine that can find this and other data, credit reference bureaus are specific search engines that find just this type of data.
You again demonstrate a total lack of understanding between storing and holding the actual data and indexing someone else's data.

Early 80s is 15 - 20 years too early. The UK's data protection act was drafted in 1998 and became law in 2000, other European ones around a similar period. I have no idea why you cherry picked 1980 when no such data protection act even existed then and when it's so long before the laws were made - they were made well after the internet came to be. It seems to be quite an assumption you've jumped to there that they w

Re:Censorship by GigaplexNZ · 2014-05-13 00:55 · Score: 1

I agree - if they're instigating "right to be forgotten", they should be forgotten. Not selectively forgetting certain unfavourable pieces of information.

cool by Charliemopps · 2014-05-13 01:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Donald Sterling's going to love this.

Reason of this decission by adokink · 2014-05-13 01:01 · Score: 1

The origin of this trial is, among others, the story of a person that had debts, paid them finally, but google displayed results of the period he had still not paid them (forums, webpages, blacklists...). This guy even changed his name, because employers would not hire him after they had made a small search on google. He decided to confront the big google in court, and after many years, he has won. This is the main reason, the "right to be forgotten".

Re:Reason of this decission by david_thornley · 2014-05-14 05:03 · Score: 1

Ideally, an employer would not look for information that the employer was not permitted to consider, and would be completely forthcoming about what criteria they used to reject your application. This doesn't happen. There's always some excuse not to hire somebody in particular, and the excuse never seems to mention any sort of protected class issue. Therefore, for this to work, people in protected classes would essentially be able to force companies to hire them, which is bad.
If you're 40 to 65 years old, in the US, you may not be discriminated against based on age. That doesn't prohibit age discrimination, in practice.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Reason of this decission by king+neckbeard · 2014-05-14 08:22 · Score: 1

Credit history just seems to be a very odd thing to discriminate upon. I can see understand why one might dislike women or old people or someone of a different ethnicity, but formerly having had bad credit doesn't make any sense.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Reason of this decission by david_thornley · 2014-05-15 06:39 · Score: 1

Bad credit is typically (not always) due to past bad judgment and/or lack of integrity, and unless it's way in the past it doesn't demonstrate that the person has gotten better judgment or more integrity. Lack of judgment and/or integrity are not good signs for finding somebody to hire. The guy I know with the worst credit is somebody I'd have trouble trusting with a burned-out match.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Reason of this decission by king+neckbeard · 2014-05-15 23:56 · Score: 1

You're sounding awfully elitist there. One's credit score is not a good way to judge one's character. Many of the ways a credit score is calculated are arbitrary, such as one's preferred method of payment. People who prefer using cash over credit aren't going to have as good of a credit score, which means that if they get a loan, they will get a worse interest rate. Never mind that vehicular and medical accidents can cause a lot of debt regardless of who the responsible party is. Credit scores are a highly flawed way of judging one's ability to take on a debt, let alone an overall judge of character or decision making.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Reason of this decission by david_thornley · 2014-05-17 03:00 · Score: 1

Yup. That's why I said "typically".
If somebody has always used cash and never borrowed money, how do you know how that person will handle credit? You don't have a history. The person presumably lived within his or her means, which is a good sign, but that's not all. The person may continue paying for most things with cash, and miss payments, not being used to them, or not really feeling debts are real. If you want to know how somebody will handle a loan, the best way is to observe how that person has handled loans.
As far as sudden big expenses, they may not be the person's fault, but it's possible the person could have done something about them beforehand. I'm unlikely to be seriously hurt by such expenses, having insurance and cash reserves. (I'm very lucky in having an ability that has been in high demand for a long time, and I'm moderately conservative with my money.) Therefore, if I get a loan, the chance that my repayment will be derailed by sudden expenses is less than somebody without as good insurance. However, one can work out of the credit hit of a big expense.
These are probably the biggest ways in which credit scores don't reflect character, but they don't do a horrible job. It isn't fair to somebody who has a bad credit rating for no fault of his or her own, but it's one way a potential employer or landlord can judge if an applicant is a good risk, and it's arguably not fair to deny them that information.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Reason of this decission by king+neckbeard · 2014-05-17 04:19 · Score: 1

Yup. That's why I said "typically".

'Typically' would imply that cases where this is not true are the exception instead of the rule. I don't think that's going to be the case.

As far as sudden big expenses, they may not be the person's fault, but it's possible the person could have done something about them beforehand.
Possible, yes. However, there are many people who have never had such opportunities.

If somebody has always used cash and never borrowed money, how do you know how that person will handle credit? You don't have a history. The person presumably lived within his or her means, which is a good sign, but that's not all. The person may continue paying for most things with cash, and miss payments, not being used to them, or not really feeling debts are real. If you want to know how somebody will handle a loan, the best way is to observe how that person has handled loans.

Paying for things with cash doesn't mean that you don't have to pay bills, and there's nothing that really makes loan payments different than other bills, other than the ability to pay more than the minimum payment. Someone who uses credit often yet moderately irresponsibly will have a better credit score than someone who manages to keep 90% of their paycheck through responsible money management (you know, the skill that one's credit score is supposed to be a proxy for) but never asks for a loan.

These are probably the biggest ways in which credit scores don't reflect character, but they don't do a horrible job.
They don't even do a good job of assessing one's ability to handle credit, and one's ability to handle credit generally has little to do with one's character, so yes, credit scores do a horrible job of depicting character, at least regarding a simple direct correlation.

It isn't fair to somebody who has a bad credit rating for no fault of his or her own, but it's one way a potential employer or landlord can judge if an applicant is a good risk, and it's arguably not fair to deny them that information.
The information makes some sense for a landlord, but not really for an employer outside not working in the financial industry and not being in crippling debt. As long as it doesn't mean they'll miss work or be otherwise unable to perform at work, credit score is irrelevant to one's ability to perform their job. Ideally, there should probably be different tiers of credit history. An institute granting a line of credit would probably have the whole seven years shebang. A landlord or similar position would have access to a more simple history proportionate to the term of the lease. A typical employer would have an even more basic history that assesses the probability of them being in such a state that they couldn't perform their job.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

This last was for the disposal of waste paper... by GoddersUK · 2014-05-13 01:02 · Score: 1

Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.

Re:Censorship by Shakrai · 2014-05-13 01:05 · Score: 1

What about information that is simply embarrassing, like the engagement announcement with my psycho ex-wife that is now in the Top 5 hits for my name on Google?

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

Re:Censorship by GoddersUK · 2014-05-13 01:12 · Score: 4, Informative

This isn't about defamatory material. This is about matters of historical/public record. This case was brought by someone who wanted records of bankruptcy proceedings against him removed. That's not libel nor slander. It's a public record. Similarly a German court blocked a guy who was trying to get records of a previous court judgement or prosecution (I don't recall which) against him removed from a newspaper website. http://www.theguardian.com/com...

Re:Censorship by plover · 2014-05-13 01:19 · Score: 2

But why is this Google's problem? It's not their data.

This kind of shit is impossible. You're going to get all kinds of censorship as a result: clams bitching about xenu, etc.

Google should repay the EU in kind by blocking all search results pertaining to a complainant: every document mentioning the person should be removed from all indices returned to EU locations. When they discover just how stupid their ruling was, too bad.

--
John

Re:Mario Costeja González by locofungus · 2014-05-13 01:26 · Score: 3, Informative

The EU does cherish freedom of speech. But it also cherishes the privacy of the individual.

The US - based on comments on this site - appears to have decided that freedom of speech trumps everything else. You can lie, cheat, shout fire in a crowded theatre, call in fake bomb scares, basically anything at all because it's all "freedom of speech."

The EU takes a much more nuanced view. Sometimes there's an overwhelming reason why freedom of speech should trump privacy. Sometimes privacy should trump freedom of speech, and sometimes it's a grey area that has to be litigated through the courts.

In this particular case, the court hasn't ruled that the information has to disappear - all they've ruled is that google (and presumably other search engines) need to give people the right to remove search results about themselves.

Most things are "allowed to be forgotten" in most circumstances. So, for example, most employers aren't allowed to ask "have you ever been made bankrupt?" although I think they can ask "are you an undischarged bankrupt". Google is allowing employers to sidestep the protective regulations that were built into bankruptcy law before the internet existed. The EU is now merely trying to reinstate them.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

Multuple cases of abuse by single people by gurps_npc · 2014-05-13 01:30 · Score: 2

There are cases where a disgruntled X does nasty things - from posting nude photos of women to falsely claiming a man was arrested for molesting a child.

Not to mention numerous cases of old, bad information, such as bankruptcy, actual arrest records, etc.

Worst of all there are several companies who exist solely to blackmail individuals into paying to remove negative information. All totally legal in some jurisdictions.

This is a good law we need it.

P.S. Someone mentioned companies and/or other large organizations using it. They already get the same thing done by paying large amounts of money to lawyers to sue people for 'copyright' infringement over videos of them committing crimes.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

Re:Multuple cases of abuse by single people by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-05-13 02:09 · Score: 1

There are already ways to deal with bad information, or people blackmaling over otherwise legal info.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Multuple cases of abuse by single people by gurps_npc · 2014-05-13 03:01 · Score: 1

They generally do NOT work if the person behind it is not an idiot. In particular, if your ex is a foreigner and returns to their home country there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop them. They routinely ignore court orders, for example. To fix this problem we need to able to go after google and select abusers. It won't completely solve the problem, but it will make it liveable.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Re:Multuple cases of abuse by single people by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-13 03:26 · Score: 1

Companies can't use the right to be forgotten. It only applies to individuals, and in the EU companies are not people.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Multuple cases of abuse by single people by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 03:55 · Score: 1

So sue. That's what defamation law is there for. Works pretty much anywhere, even in the states. And as an added bonus, it gets to the problem at it's source.
Re:Multuple cases of abuse by single people by gurps_npc · 2014-05-14 01:28 · Score: 1

Does not work well against people. 1) Sometimes the people move to another country which basically negates the lawsuit. 2) Often they just ignore the court order. Easy to get a court order, hard to get the court to order someone put in jail for not obeying it. 3) Suing costs a lot of money. Emailing google to take it down is cheap. 4) Even if you successfully sue them, they can repeat the crime so you have to sue again. More money. If the counter is another email to google and the website, you can keep up with their crimes. But you can't keep suing them repeatedly without bankrupting yourself

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

Protected class by tepples · 2014-05-13 01:36 · Score: 2

In practice, that would require legislation in each jurisdiction to recognize former debtors as a protected class under equal employment opportunity law.

Re:Protected class by fafaforza · 2014-05-13 01:49 · Score: 1

Hold on there, that would be getting to the root of the problem. That makes way too much sense.
Re:Protected class by king+neckbeard · 2014-05-13 02:19 · Score: 1

I don't see that as a problem, at least not in regards to employment, especially if the protection only extends to debts that are no longer part of one's credit report, which are not considered relevant to someone loaning you money, let alone paying you to perform a job. The legitimate relevance of a credit check towards employment shouldn't really extend past not being in crippling debt that will interfere with performing your job outside of a few careers for which money management is a legitimate skill.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Protected class by tepples · 2014-05-13 02:44 · Score: 1

I don't know firsthand because I've never needed to go bankrupt, but if I remember correctly, a bankruptcy remains on an individual's credit report for seven years.
Re:Protected class by king+neckbeard · 2014-05-13 06:33 · Score: 1

That sounds in line with most everything else on a credit report. However, it would seem like his objection would be that information that WOULDN'T be on his credit report is present on Google searches for his name. That information is probably not relevant to his employer.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:Censorship by StripedCow · 2014-05-13 01:37 · Score: 3, Funny

I actually agree with this decision and if google removes all references to me I wouldn't mind in the least (they have very little anyway);

Are you serious? When I do a google search for "Anonymous Coward", it returns quite some hits.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:Censorship by fafaforza · 2014-05-13 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Does Lexis-Nexis get sued because they index libelous articles?

Re: Mario Costeja González by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-13 01:46 · Score: 1

The EU cherishes one thing only: money. And specifically, the Almighty Euro to which everything must be sacrificed. Toil hard, Europeans, for the Heilige Euro! Your blood, sweet and tears under oligarchy-imposed austerity is for the ultimate victory the Europeischesweltanschauung over the inferior untermensch! HEIL EURO FOR THE GLORY OF GERMANIC EUROPE!

Re:Censorship by Xest · 2014-05-13 01:47 · Score: 1

This isn't a new issue anyway though, if you go bankrupt it's in the public record for all eternity, and the public record is clearly the public record.

But credit reference agencies farm this data and use it in their credit references, because they're not simple public record they can only store them for a certain number of years. So whilst they stay in the clear public record, they can only be used for processing purposes for a certain period of time.

It's already pretty well established what public record is - public court archives, newspapers and so forth. Google takes data and makes it searchable - that's not public record, as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more. That's why Google lost this case, and quite rightly so. Companies like credit reference agencies have had to live to these standards for a long long time already, companies on the internet shouldn't get some exception.

Enforcement. by fafaforza · 2014-05-13 01:51 · Score: 1

Wonder how this will be enforced when a page might consider a first and last name only, and there are many people with the same combination. Now Google will have to be the arbiter of whether a request is legitimate, and not being made by someone unconnected, but simply having the same name.

Re:Enforcement. by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-05-13 02:01 · Score: 1

When I read about this decision in the news, I immediately went to the Google and checked my full name (first, middle, last).
It's an unusual name.
And yet, there was someone else on the web with the same first, middle, last name as mine. Born in the same year as me, in fact....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Otherside of Right to be Forgotten by HockeyPuck · 2014-05-13 01:57 · Score: 2

is the Right to be Tracked.

If I want to call up $company and tell them "delete everything you know about me from your index." This implies that without asking them, I've granted them the ability to track me.

This also puts quite a burden on me to call them up and say, "Hey, I just joined BowlingLeague.com as user StrikesAPlenty, please delete me from your index.

Also, how do you prove that a given user really is you? Your name probably isn't that unique. Which "Bob Smith" are you?

Re:Otherside of Right to be Forgotten by dublin · 2014-05-13 10:06 · Score: 2

This is the really scary aspect of this decision, and it seems to be lost on most of the commenters here -
In order for Google (or any other provider of information services) to even putatively be *able* to delete all information they have regarding you, they first have to have all information about and relating to you tagged with your identity.
This effectively means they must (by law) keep an auditable log of everything you ever do on the net.
What could possibly go wrong with that? I'm telling you, Hitler and Stalin only dreamed of the power that big governments and big corporations will have to monitor, control, and even "disappear" us in the very near future...

--
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
Re:Otherside of Right to be Forgotten by david_thornley · 2014-05-14 05:17 · Score: 1

Why? In this case, the guy requested that Google not publish certain links. We know Google can remove links, because they do on certain occasions. There was never a suggestion that Google do anything with other links pertaining to the guy. So, Google doesn't have to know what links pertain to whom, they only have to remove particular links when requested.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

It's not about *forgetting*... by mspring · 2014-05-13 02:16 · Score: 1

...it's about remembering to not serve out this piece of information.

Re:Censorship by Br00se · 2014-05-13 02:28 · Score: 2

Google takes data and makes it searchable - that's not public record, as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more. That's why Google lost this case, and quite rightly so.

You don't "take" data from the public record, you "share" data from the public record. It doesn't stop being part of the public record just because it gets republished.

Re:Censorship by Xest · 2014-05-13 02:41 · Score: 1

You're being pedantic about a bit of slang and Slashdot isn't a graded English language MOOC. It's not uncommon to treat copy and take as interchangeable as take in this context is just read as shorthand for "take a copy of".

Re:Censorship by fustakrakich · 2014-05-13 02:53 · Score: 1

That's bullshit. Google is not a credit company. This is clearly censorship for use by powerful people, just like the whole idea of libel/slander. The only issue is how the info is used. That is the only thing that should be controlled. I certainly hope there will be a way to circumvent such nonsense. Distributed search engines perhaps, hell distributed everything is what we desperately need, especially internet provision. Otherwise it will only become just another broadcast medium for the authorities to spread their propaganda. It has already started with the copyright wars as their first vector of attack.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Censorship by Xest · 2014-05-13 03:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

How is it censorship for use by powerful people? The law doesn't even protect powerful people - the law as it stands weighs the right to privacy against the public interest and politicians are at an inherent disadvantage because the public interest weighs more heavily against them than it does your average Joe on the street.

You'll have a hard time arguing that it's in the public interest that Joe's drug snorting photos from 20 years ago when he was young and stupid should stay up for all to see, but in contrast it's very much in the public interest to keep photos of a politician snorting drugs when they're meant to be enacting policy on drugs and narcotics policing for example.

I'll be clear here - this is explicit in the law, this isn't just my interpretation or speculation, the law is written specifically so this is the case, therefore you're wrong to say it's only for powerful people, on the contrary, it's designed explicitly for the little guy, so that mistakes they made some time ago don't have to ruin their life, whilst making it impossible for dodgy politicians to also take advantage of it. This isn't your typical badly written and easily abused law, it's actually pretty decent. It's one of those rare exceptions.

"The only issue is how the info is used"

That's actually what the law does - it doesn't allow removal of say, newspaper articles. It does however allow the removal of links to such articles. The articles themselves are public record, the links to such articles are just Google making use of public record to make money pointing to the articles.

I'm anti-censorship, but I'm also pro-privacy. This is one of those cases where they've actually got the balance right.

Right to revise history by Mike+Buddha · 2014-05-13 03:14 · Score: 1

Hurray for Europe and it's newly inaugurated right to revise history! I'm sure the Hitlers, Mussolinis, and Francos are going to take great advantage of this ruling now that those situations have been resolved. No more embarrassment!

--
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.

Just another type of take down request by Steve1952 · 2014-05-13 03:18 · Score: 1

It seems to me as if Google and other search companies can simply treat this right of privacy as simply being another type of take down request. An alternative way of looking at this is that an individual has a sort of "copyright" privilege over certain aspects of their private history.

Re:Censorship by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 03:38 · Score: 1

It isn't defamatory until a court says it is, in which case the source material can be removed by court order, and no sooner. This european idiocy has even more potential for abuse than the DMCA.

Re:Censorship by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 03:39 · Score: 2

Even if it's true? You're asking for a world without natural consequences. Fool.

The fact is OK, but a link to the fact is not? by RandCraw · 2014-05-13 03:43 · Score: 1

If someone wants to escape their past, they need to get a retraction of the DATA itself, not all links to the data.

In the case oif the spaniard who wanted his bankruptcy to go unnoticed, he needs to get the owner of that factoid to remove it. If the fact remains online, then it's most certainly *not* someone else's responsibility to route others around the minefield you've laid.

This ruling is censorship, pure and ugly.

Re:Censorship by fustakrakich · 2014-05-13 03:45 · Score: 1

You are effectively calling for book burning. That is not anti-censorship. You don't stop sinning by poking your eyes out. This whole idea is so easily corrupted, it should be dismissed out of hand with no argument, or even comment. All information will become political because it will be controlled by politicians writing legislation on how it is to be stored and distributed. Hopefully our famous internet can route around such nonsense.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Just use Baidu or another search engine... by rnbc · 2014-05-13 03:48 · Score: 1

Just use Baidu or Yandex or another search engine..., it's a multipartite world, choose your poison :)

The decision is effectively unenforcable globally. For example, baidu is great for searching google-MPAA-censored content, etc.

--
You cannot proceed from the informal to formal by formal means

Re:Mario Costeja González by Psyborgue · 2014-05-13 03:54 · Score: 2

But what about *my speech*? I have a website about a woman who refers kids to abusive programs to "help" them. The owner of one of the programs she sent kids to threw kids down stairs and pled no contest in court to charges of child abuse. She refers kids to programs for kickbacks, just as that judge in PA did, but nothing she has done is technically legal, so I felt that a website would help warn others about her.

Does her right to "privacy" include the right to hide her current bad actions and prevent *my speech* from being read by others? You are also mistaken about the US view speech. Defamation can indeed get you sued. However, we in the US believe in due process. In other words, something is not defamatory unless it has been judged to be so in court.

Also, you're splitting hairs about the Google results. It's like arguing that a government modifying DNS records to censor websites isn't really censorship because you can still type in the IP address. If you do something that prevents 99% of people from finding a piece of information, it's censorship no matter what you want to call it.

Re:Censorship by Br00se · 2014-05-13 04:39 · Score: 2

Then how do you justify the statement, "as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more." ?

I don't follow your reasoning. How does anything that becomes a part of the public record stop being public? I can understand correcting the record if there are errors, corrections add to the record. But, I don't see how subtracting data is ever a good thing.

Re:Mario Costeja González by bitt3n · 2014-05-13 04:57 · Score: 1

The EU does cherish freedom of speech. But it also cherishes the privacy of the individual.

The US - based on comments on this site - appears to have decided that freedom of speech trumps everything else. You can lie, cheat, shout fire in a crowded theatre, call in fake bomb scares, basically anything at all because it's all "freedom of speech."

The EU takes a much more nuanced view.

This is a canard. Nobody in his right mind, even on this site, contends that free speech ought to allow one to break laws. Punching someone in the face is undoubtedly a form of speech, insofar as it communicates a message, but one cannot defend such an assault on free speech grounds. Likewise with insider trading and any other crime involving speech.

You appear to be framing the difference between the two approaches as one of Yosemite Sam on the one side, speechifying willy nilly without regard for the baleful consequences of his indiscretions, and on the other, the pasty-faced egghead Parisian intellectual in his black beret and turtleneck, heaving a weary sigh at the rusticated antics of his Yankee cousin, whilst making a few minor tweaks to the law in the interests of the basic human decency that so delights the heart of the European, but so quickly withers away in the harsh frontier conditions of the New World. You might bring some of that famed European nuance to bear on the question and consider whether this cartoonish interpretation does anything more than flatter your own ego.

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?

Re:Censorship by Stormy+Dragon · 2014-05-13 04:57 · Score: 1

How do we know Joe isn't going to become a politician 10 years from now?

Re:Censorship by Xest · 2014-05-13 05:16 · Score: 1

We don't, but we're also not erasing all information from the internet, it'll still be available in papers as public record.

This isn't really even a new problem as the internet is a new thing - plenty of politicians have had their life history dug up and plastered over the papers long before it was ever recorded on the internet or the internet was ever available.

Re:Censorship by AmiMoJo · 2014-05-13 05:36 · Score: 1

Okay, say you set up a company that recorded all bankruptcies. The law says that after a certain time you don't have to report bankruptcy to an employer or bank looking to loan you money, and credit agencies are not allowed to hold that data either. But your company is special, because it just links to articles about bankruptcies and lets people search then instantly. You don't charge for this service, you just make money off advertising.

That's Google. Circumventing the rules that credit agencies and employers have to abide by. Newspapers don't have to go back and remove the story of course, but that's because it isn't easy for someone who no knowledge other than a resume to go around every newspaper archive looking for stories going back decades. For an employer or bank to do so would probably be illegal and is easy to detect (requires lots of staff time, or another company offering that service), but doing a quick Google search and then quietly declining to interview that person is hard to spot. The law understands this and is quite sensible.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Censorship by gl4ss · 2014-05-13 06:09 · Score: 1

but it is a fact.

maybe better to learn to live with emberrassing history(like spelling a form of embarrassment wrong like I just did there..).

I mean, everything potentially is a public interest issue. what if the next guy marries him because he didn't find her previous engagement messages online? why entitled to the information, since it might be in their best interests to have it?

and what if I do a bad job? can I just ask them to remove information about it??

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:Mario Costeja González by CowTipperGore · 2014-05-13 06:09 · Score: 1

Most things are "allowed to be forgotten" in most circumstances. So, for example, most employers aren't allowed to ask "have you ever been made bankrupt?" although I think they can ask "are you an undischarged bankrupt". Google is allowing employers to sidestep the protective regulations that were built into bankruptcy law before the internet existed. The EU is now merely trying to reinstate them.

You seem to have a problem understanding that there is a difference between "forgotten" and "harder to remember". Data that still exists in the public records and still exists in the newspaper's web site is not forgotten. Come talk to us when Google is caching the data after it was removed from the source site.

Re:Censorship by Xest · 2014-05-13 06:11 · Score: 1

Okay, maybe I wasn't explicit enough so I'll rephrase the point I was intending to make.

The original copy in public record is not altered, not changed, not removed, it stays the same. The copy Google takes is not public record because it is using the information in a manner that involves further processing and functionality that stretches beyond merely acting as a public record (taking a snippet, making it searchable, selling ads against it, doing analytics etc.).

Hope that makes more sense now.

Yes. by KingMotley · 2014-05-13 06:23 · Score: 1

I don't post as an anonymous coward to hide my identity. I've posted when I was clearly in the minority, but I still post, and I've taken some crazy karma hits for it too. My karma is pretty good, so I don't mind the occasional hit because I'm not in the majority opinion, but I don't write inflammatory or troll posts either.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the commentary would be better off without AC posts as well.

No balance here by Maxwell · 2014-05-13 06:25 · Score: 1

Your description sounds nice, but if you RTA that is not what happened here. The guy went bankrupt. Lost his house. Newspaper reported the forced sale of said house (online). Google indexed the newspaper article. Judge says newspaper (online) can stay. Link must be remove from google.

What a slippery slope this is. If the newspaper has a search engine, does that link have to be removed? Many newspapers are part of a chain/umbrella organization. Does their search list have to change? What if it is a static index on the media site? What if he wants to keep the links to his daughters wedding, and only drop the links to the foreclosure? Can he pick and choose which articles are indexable and which aren't? How?

There is no balance here, just a hopeless attempt to change the past that isn't feasible to implement technically anyway.

"ironically" by PJ6 · 2014-05-13 06:29 · Score: 1

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Oh, it's timothy...

Never mind. At least this one's readable and has complete sentences.

The real use of this by mysidia · 2014-05-13 07:47 · Score: 1

any searches made on the basis of a person's name that returns links/descriptions for web pages containing information on the person in question can, upon request by the related individual, be removed.

SEO.

Companies are persons. This gives them more control of their name.

They certainly won't want any competitors' links to be listed in search results, or ads, when their name is searched.

Now they just need to exercise their "right" of removal.

Re:The real use of this by david_thornley · 2014-05-14 05:18 · Score: 1

This is an EU decision. Companies are not persons in the EU.
In the US, they merely use SLAPP tactics.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:The real use of this by mysidia · 2014-05-14 23:35 · Score: 1

This is an EU decision. Companies are not persons in the EU.
I believe that's an overly optimistic view of the situation. Corporate personhood is a European principle that the US was late to adopt.
If corporations don't secure the right in the EU today, it's only a short matter of time before they do.
Obviously the primary use case of this 'right' is to create deception by promoting only search results you want/like about you, and to conceal/destroy the rest.

Re:Mario Costeja González by locofungus · 2014-05-13 08:46 · Score: 1

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

This is a canard. Nobody in his right mind, even on this site, contends that free speech ought to allow one to break laws.

Google is breaking the law in Europe. The European court didn't make a new law, the European court merely ruled that *EXISTING* laws require google to delete the information when requested.

QED.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

Re:Mario Costeja González by bitt3n · 2014-05-13 09:07 · Score: 1

That is a response to your curious understanding of how free speech is handled in the US, not the EU.

--
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?

Re:Censorship by DMUTPeregrine · 2014-05-13 14:55 · Score: 2

They're a legal document database. They index court decisions, filings, laws, etc.

--
Not a sentence!

Re:Censorship by Adrian+Lopez · 2014-05-13 15:36 · Score: 1

"That's actually what the law does - it doesn't allow removal of say, newspaper articles. It does however allow the removal of links to such articles."

The law doesn't allow removal of the newspaper articles; It only allows removal of any and all external references to it. That makes me feel soooo much better.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."

Re:Mario Costeja González by Jahta · 2014-05-13 23:45 · Score: 1

But what about *my speech*?

Ob. xkcd link Free Speech.

Re:Mario Costeja González by Psyborgue · 2014-05-14 04:04 · Score: 1

You're missing the point of the xkcd. This *is* the government censoring my speech, so yes, it is censorship.

Re:Censorship by Psyborgue · 2014-05-14 05:16 · Score: 1

You fail to grasp the concept of due process.

Re:Mario Costeja González by Jahta · 2014-05-14 21:31 · Score: 1

You're missing the point of the xkcd. This *is* the government censoring my speech, so yes, it is censorship.

Eh, no. The point is there's nothing stopping you saying anything (and still isn't). But there's no magic amulet protecting you from the consequences of saying it either.

Re:Mario Costeja González by Psyborgue · 2014-05-14 22:38 · Score: 1

I'd say when the government stops people from seeing your content, that qualifies. Consequences would be a civil lawsuit or just being called an asshole.

Slashdot Mirror

EU Court of Justice Paves Way For "Right To Be Forgotten" Online

151 of 199 comments (clear)