Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Following EU Ruling, BBC Article Excluded From Google Searches

Posted by Soulskill on from the system-and-method-to-break-the-internet dept.

Albanach writes: In 2007, the BBC's economics editor, Robert Peston, penned an article on the massive losses at Merrill Lynch and the resulting resignation of their CEO Stan O'Neal. Today, the BBC has been notified that the 2007 article will no longer appear in some Google searches made within the European Union, apparently as a result of someone exercising their new-found "right to be forgotten." O'Neal was the only individual named in the 2007 article. While O'Neal has left Merrill Lynch, he has not left the world of business, and now holds a directorship at Alcoa, the world's third largest aluminum producer with $23 billion in revenues in 2013.

64 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Blaming Google by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know why the journalist is blaming Google for this ("So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?") when it's obvious they're not doing this voluntarily.

    1. Re:Blaming Google by EasyTarget · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know why the journalist is blaming Google for this ("So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?") when it's obvious they're not doing this voluntarily.

      Because the people in charge are terrified of Google, the Internet, and their citizens use of it. So the BBC, kowtowing as usual to power, but still with enough journalistic testicles to make some form of protest, blames Google.. in the hope they can get away with it. Rather than pinning the blame on the corrupt shitpile of lawyers and wonks who forced Google to do this in a desperate attempt to make money the deciding factor in information control and suppression.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
    2. Re:Blaming Google by Albanach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He doesn't really blame Google. From the article:

      To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling.

      He does question why there's no apparent right to appeal. It would certainly seem reasonable to allow the person responsible for an article to highlight why it is still relevant or not outdated since often they will have better knowledge of the subject area than a paralegal.

    3. Re:Blaming Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, although the article is quite opinionated, it seems to reference events of the time, so it shouldn't be considered inaccurate unless the author was lying.

      O'Neal (the article spells it with an 'a', despite the summary substituting an 'i') is a director in a new company, so his activities as a CEO of a previous company are still relevant.

      And the events of the article are less than a decade old, so the article is definitely not outdated.

      So, by all counts Google is dropping the search results voluntarily without even trying to filter for any EU requirements. Thus this is squarely Google's bad.

    4. Re:Blaming Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      O'Neal (the article spells it with an 'a', despite the summary substituting an 'i')

      It's O'Neill. Two L's.

    5. Re:Blaming Google by Maxwell · · Score: 2

      You should let Alcoa know. Pretty embarrassing having the the name of one of their corporate directors wrong.

    6. Re:Blaming Google by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      He doesn't really blame Google. From the article:

      To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling.

      He does question why there's no apparent right to appeal. It would certainly seem reasonable to allow the person responsible for an article to highlight why it is still relevant or not outdated since often they will have better knowledge of the subject area than a paralegal.

      It appears the "right to be Forgotten" rules apparently have no provision for appeal or to give the supplier of the information the right to decide if it was a valid request. It appears the data holder could decide the request was not a valid one; however given the requester could litigate such a decision it seems many will simply take the expedient route of deleting links.

      Quite frankly, an appeals process would be an onerous burden on the data holder since they would then be placed in the position of deciding who is right and possibly face legal challenges. If they want to build in an appeals process then the legal liability and burden out to be on the person making the appeal, not the search engine. After all, Google isn't deleting their content just ignoring it per EU directive; and anyone with a VPN can still go to a non-EU proxy to get access.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    7. Re:Blaming Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      They already know. There's another Director O'Neil with only one L, and he has no sense of humor at all.

    8. Re:Blaming Google by OakDragon · · Score: 2

      You should let Alcoa know. Pretty embarrassing having the the name of one of their corporate directors wrong.

      They can always ask for it to be removed.

      --
      Dark Reflection
    9. Re:Blaming Google by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Google is required by law to do it "voluntarily". It is up to Google to interpret the law. The EU made it clear that their law system does not want to get involved and wants Google to "just do it", but to also not allow "blatant abuse", which is undefined. Google can get in trouble, so they need to be cautious, and a rich person could easily start an expensive law suit.

    10. Re:Blaming Google by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      It appears the "right to be Forgotten" rules apparently have no provision for appeal or to give the supplier of the information the right to decide if it was a valid request.

      Why should there be a provision for appeal? It's the person's data, and Google isn't an organ of the state offering a social service. They're just some private company that collects data indiscriminately, whether true or false, and publishes it for profit. At best there should be strict identity checking to prevent fraud.

      Google doesn't publish any of the information it indexes. A real world counterpart would be to expect every librarian to vet every article in very newspaper, magazine, encyclopedia,book or other document they catalogue for fraud. As unreasonable expectation for them as for Google. Google makes no claim to the veracity of their information, beyond trying to keep obvious attempts to game result sour of searches.

      The best way to view this is like those car window washers at the red lights. They start washing your windscreen without asking, and then expect payment as if you'd agreed to this. Similarly, Google goes around publishing stuff about everyone without asking, and without quality control, to make money.

      First of all, Google is not intruding an property without permission no taking any action to

      Not really, they are following an accepted practice since the start of the internet, i.e. searching for specific terms and returning the results. Unlike Kibo and his all seeing grep; they use those sort results based on their algorithms and store information for quicker access. If you don't want them to crawl your site, a simple HTML tag will stop them unlike window washers who you may have to pull a weapon on to convince them to leave your property alone.

      A more relevant real world example would be requiring publishers to remove material from their archives so it would be as if they never existed.

      It's perfectly natural to be able to tell Google to stop publishing rumours and hearsay, or even true fact that are embarassing.

      I would say that is one POV. Independent of wether or not you consider Google to publish information, the challenge is how to decide what is legitimately able to be removed. When is their a demonstrable public interest in the information that outweighs a right to privacy? Should the press be shutout from Google searches because what they publish could be embarrassing, damaging, and possibly wrong? Get a bad review? Take it down. This path, taken to an extreme, means no negative information would be searchable, no matter if it is true or not.

      Finally, how do you address cases where a company has no presence in the EU, but is reachable from the EU? Should they comply with removal requests? Should EU based companies with no presence in China remove material the Chinese find offensive, threatening or otherwise want removed?

      I am not saying their shouldn't be a mechanism to address a right to privacy but in the absence of clear guidance it can have many unforeseen consequences.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  2. Oops. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3

    No public figure exception? Our bad.

    1. Re:Oops. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      No public figure exception? Our bad.

      WONTFIX/WORKSFORME

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  3. Before you laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before you laugh about these high profile cases of people trying to be "forgotten," remember that after a while, these removals will become so commonplace that people will stop paying attention, and the system will work as intended.

    1. Re:Before you laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's just get this out of the way now: If Hitler were alive today he'd be able to have Google remove all links to anything relating to himself as the Nazi leader.

      Another question to be asked: If a journalistic article can be taken down, could a page with commenters referencing Hitler (as in this /. article due to this very post) be removed from Google's search?

  4. Who controls the past... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

    1. Re:Who controls the past... by EasyTarget · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1984; the instruction manual for our lords and masters.

      Google should create a special app/site for takedown requests, and call it 'Winston'.

      --
      "Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
  5. Whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Didn't take long to find the giant flaw in with the "right to be forgotten," did it? One percenters will now use it to selectively edit their Internet profile.

    1. Re: Whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, sort of. Google's search is for the masses. Financial sector companies subscribe to other, paywalled sources of information, like Lexis and Bloomberg. They'll still carry the uncensored truth, which is a great selling point.

  6. Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On one hand you have a guy who got in a bar fight when he was in college. Some drunk idiot spills beer on his girlfriend, so he confronts drunk idiot and beats him down, then gets charged with assault. On the other hand, you have this piece of shit (Stan O'Neil).

    Which is worse? The college kid having an assault charge hanging over his head the rest of his life, or guys like Stan O'Neil being given a free-pass when they rape millions of people for billions of their hard-earned dollars.

    Perhaps the answer is to have a 15-year (or 20-year) waiting period before you can exercise your right to be forgotten? Maybe the answer is just not to commit a crime in the first place.

    1. Re:Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Would a 20-year old news article about getting into a bar fight really need removal? That isn't going to keep the person from getting a job or something. Someone who judges people from 20-year old charges isn't worth working for.

      The power to arbitrarily remove someone else's published works is horrible - it's like the 1st amendment in reverse. There's no legitimate reason for that, and this example of a wealthy person trying to hide their laundry is proof.

    2. Re:Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about changing our culture so that public crucifixion based on someone's past mistakes is not acceptable?

  7. As well as this SlashDot article by sremick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Soon you won't be finding this Slashdot article in EU Google searches either.

  8. Stan O'Neil - Never heard of him, before. by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Funny

    Crimmany. Before this demand to be forgotten I had never heard of Stan O'Neil. Now, knowing this I'll be sure not to hire him, etc, etc.

  9. This is hilarious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    News outlet reports on business world goings on, a CEO leaving a company that is having financial woes.
    Google indexes article.
    Years later, person mentioned in article files request to delist new article.
    Google delists, advises news outlet of article delisting.
    News outlet writes new article about delisting of old article, links to old article.
    Google indexes new article.

    In the words of Robin Williams: "Mr. President. In the dictionary under Redundant, it says 'see: Redundant'."

  10. Indirect References by ZipK · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is Google responsible for "forgetting" all possible path to this BBC article? E.g., will this Slashdot article turn up in a Google search in the EU? How about this comment, if I include a link to the original BBC article?

  11. DUDE actually has a point by cloud.pt · · Score: 2

    So dude doesn't want his name's first search result to be an over-hyped headline. Despite being a very decent publication, BBC is mass media, and as such it has to make news outrageously. Dude just made a pondered decision to save some company's face, or was forced to without having a second chance to fix it, and maybe I'm assuming here) is not even directly at fault for the company's losses. Maybe yes maybe not.

    I don't think he has to professionally and personally live under that shadow for the rest of his life, just because an indexing algorithm is inclined to shove it up his popper every single time someone wants to know who he is.

    I'm guessing someone who really needs to know that info will know it eventually, not through google. His decision to be forgotten will most likely only seclude the info from wannabe conspiracy theorists and amateur employers, which pretty much deserve to NOT know it :)

  12. Ok, human beings next? by mi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Supposedly, a way is discovered to make people forget certain things. Not far-fetched — we can already plant false memories...

    I am asking the proponents of this wonderful "right to be forgotten" legislation, whether they would approve of a law, that would allow people to demand, their ex-partners be forced to undergo a procedure to make them forget of the good time the have once shared, for example.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. Blame Google. by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect Google's playing at what is called "malicious compliance". They don't like the law, because they don't like spending money, just making it. So what they really want is to wind up the news outlets to turn them against the law, because only the press has the power to form public opinion. So I'm very glad to see the BBC pushing back rather than swallowing the bait.

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    1. Re:Blame Google. by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't like the law, because they don't like spending money, just making it.

      As opposed to all of those other companies that love spending money and hate making it?

    2. Re:Blame Google. by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how much money is Google expected to spend reviewing whether seven year old news stories are covered by the ruling? Particularly when they're liable for court costs and damages if the EU court later decides that it is covered by the ruling?

    3. Re:Blame Google. by duranaki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I totally agree with the malicious compliance, only I'm glad to see Google doing it. This is a stupid law that seems vaguely like DMCA for removing true information that violates no one's copyright. The EU was nice enough to let Google (pay an army of paralegals to) make a first pass at figuring out which things violated their general terms, so I'm glad Google's using that freedom to point out ludicrous examples before people have forgotten all about this new censorship.

    4. Re:Blame Google. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course they don't like the law, it's a horrible law. And why shouldn't they wind up the news outlets against this, it isn't as if this law doesn't affect the outlets as well. This is merely dragging them into the playing field, where they should have belonged in the first place.

    5. Re:Blame Google. by DutchUncle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Public Interest" . . . I once sat on a jury on a libel case, in which a financier was suing the Wall Street Journal for having said defamatory things about him. The judge instructed us very clearly that truth is not an absolute defense; that is, even if every single thing in the article was provably true, it would still count as libel if it was (for example) just rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation.

      If you submit a resume, people check your references, but apparently keeping people from finding out an *executive's* history just requires bigger lawyers.

    6. Re:Blame Google. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The judge instructed us very clearly that truth is not an absolute defense; that is, even if every single thing in the article was provably true, it would still count as libel if it was (for example) just rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation.

      Does this mean that credit rating agencies are libeling you if they give you anything but the highest rating? Because isn't "rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation" exactly what they're doing then?

      Or does these laws only protect the first-class citizens?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    7. Re:Blame Google. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      As much as they have to, just like any other company handling personal data. If a credit reference agency argued that it cost too much to check the data it held and process requests to have to corrected I'm pretty sure it wouldn't fly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Blame Google. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      You are missing the point. When Google was requested to "forget" what this guy had done, they did so, even though the EU court ruling might have allowed them to continue to link to the article. Why did they do this? Because it was easier and cheaper than fighting it through the courts. Since they lost the first case, they have nothing to gain from fighting this one.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Blame Google. by Rosyna · · Score: 2

      "Public Interest" . . . I once sat on a jury on a libel case, in which a financier was suing the Wall Street Journal for having said defamatory things about him. The judge instructed us very clearly that truth is not an absolute defense; that is, even if every single thing in the article was provably true, it would still count as libel if it was (for example) just rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation.

      What country was this? In the US, truth is most absolutely an absolute defense in defamation cases.

    10. Re:Blame Google. by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 2

      Isn't "meat inspector" a job of the government, paid for by taxes? The EU didn't provide Google with a "forgotten person" inspector. When it comes to meat, there are clearly objective measurements to determine when it has gone bad. There are no objective criteria handed down to determine when this right applies and when it doesn't. You're asking a for-profit company to personally be responsible for the cost of evaluating every case before them. In fact, you don't even know whether or not they did evaluate this? Given their precedent setting loss, it's not unreasonable to assume that they've set the threshold higher than maybe you would have.

      If you were to ask me, the only objective criteria should be as simple as "Was the event newsworthy?" (Yes, because it appeared in the news.) But that's clearly not enough. The information is still allowed to exist, so it's not libelous and the information itself is not illegal, only linking to it is. There is no "registered famous/public person" database (or even a definition of a "public" person). The problem is that you can't just smell this meat and decide if it's gone bad. Now, Google could decide, on its own, to declare that this particular case doesn't pass the undefined threshold, but they have to take on all the expense and risk.

      You've come along and demanded that Google toss out all the bad meat (without defining it), and NOW you're complaining when they find it easier to also throw out some good meat. Everyone told you that's what they'd do. It's the ONLY sensible course of action.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    11. Re:Blame Google. by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      How about the other part of this story. Why did Alcoa hire this mega loser. What is the existing board of Alcoa's plan. Is there some sort of scam going on. Is the Alcoa board seeking to get all bendy with books, bloat up the bonuses while bankrupting the company and blaming all on this guy with the crappy track record. It's not like Alcoa didn't know, for a director they don't bother with a Google search, the get professionals to track down all the pertinent bits of information, they know exactly who this guy is and what his track record is. Seriously, why did Alcoa hire this guy to be a director and why are they now trying to hide who he is!?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Blame Google. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      What country was this? In the US, truth is most absolutely an absolute defense in defamation cases.

      No, that's not the standard, though it's often pretty hard to win a libel case against something true. The legal standard for "public figures" is actual malice, which does not require malicious intent -- instead, "actual malice" is just a legal term that means that someone published information with knowledge that the information was false or "with reckless disregard" to whether the information is true or false.

      That last thing means that if someone goes on a campaign to smear someone's name deliberately and starts digging up any information that can be found and recklessly publishing it without checking it out, it could be considered libelous, even if true.

      For private persons or lesser known figures, there also is a false light tort available in some states (other states group such claims under regular defamation or libel claims). This can also apply when true statements are used in a misleading way or bring attention to someone in a misleading way. (For an extreme example, if you published a photo of John Doe with the caption "John Doe, New York Resident" next to a headline "Sex Offenders Go Free in New York," even though everything was "true," it could mislead readers.)

      Were either of these situations likely in GP's case. I don't know. But truth is NOT an absolute defense against libel in all cases.

    13. Re:Blame Google. by khallow · · Score: 2

      So bottom line is that it's a lot cheaper to comply with the law even when an extensive, costly review (and possibly a subsequent costly lawsuit) would determine that you didn't have to.

    14. Re:Blame Google. by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They could also work within the law as interpreted by the courts to work out efficient procedures that everybody can live with, which is a better idea, long term.

      No, I think the malicious compliance approach is more effective long term. I think when European politicians get their press and websites dropped, then we'll start seeing some fixing of this terrible law. While efficient procedures for compliance leads to no incentives for improving or eliminating the law in question.

    15. Re:Blame Google. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      In the US, truth is most absolutely an absolute defense in defamation cases.

      What happens if someone decides to ruin your life by constantly publicizing mistakes you made decades ago, for no other reason than harming you? I suppose you would have to seek some other kind of legal remedy, some kind of C&D order. Well, under UK law we use libel for that.

      In either case truth is only a defence if the person publishing the material is not doing so maliciously.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  14. Article is wrong by Halo1 · · Score: 2

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

    That is plain wrong. The judgement only requires that people can ask that searches for their name (and /only/ their name) no longer turn up results that are "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".

    Searching for Merrill's mess, Merill Lynch subprime etc will all still include his article in the results and no one has any right under the ruling to object to that, even if it mentions Stan Oâ(TM)Neal's name in connection with shady business deals a thousand times (just like no one can object against this post turning up in response to such queries).

    Keeping that in mind, I do agree with the author that the article should not be excluded even when searching for Stan Oâ(TM)Neal's name, as the inadequacy/irrelevancy test does not fly here in my opinion either. He did say Google will get back to him on that point.

    --
    Donate free food here
    1. Re:Article is wrong by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      Define "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".

      Keep in mind your definition must apply to every single situation and under no circumstance a judge will disagree with your assessment and assign damages. Because that is what Google is facing, people can have any search result that lists their name removed if it meets whatever arbitrary definition of those three words a judge wishes to interpret.

      There is a very legitimate argument that those terms are so vague Google has no choice whatsoever but to simply delist every single thing they are asked to delist. The european listings are going to be swiss cheese and worthless in 6 months.

    2. Re:Article is wrong by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      You can go first by defining such a rule about the first, second, fourth, ... amendment to the US Constitution. I'll even let you include all judgements by the Supreme Court on that particular amendment. Laws and judgements involving fundamental/inalienable (human) rights are never condensable into a simplistic rule.

      Which is totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion and a rather poor attempt at a straw man.

      The judge has to interpret the entire judgement by the ECHR, which is quite a bit more elaborate than that.

      Even if it's more elaborate it's still vague and undefined and allows the person requesting the removal to ask for damages if Google guesses wrong.

      And there is a very legitimate argument that it does not have to do that.

      Not there isn't.

      Given that Google strongly opposed the judgement and given the fact that the further interpretation of the judgement has not yet been set in stone, it's a bit silly to conclude that Google now doesn't have any choice, in particular since the judgement also explicitly mentions that search engine operators only have to act ‘within the framework of their responsibilities, powers and capabilities’.

      Google has absolutely no idea how individual judges will interpret this rule because as you say there is no case law developed and each individual country could develop different rules about how it applies. They guess wrong and they get hit with damages, this is on top of facing potentially 5 or 6 digit numbers of lawsuits (50K requests in a couple days could be millions per year) all over the entire EU whose costs would be staggering even for a company as large as Google. Google is not a civil rights NGO. They have no obligation to throw all their profit to the wind trying to define what those three words mean. It would be beyond foolish for them to even get involved. Their only sensible option is to simply delist everything requested.

      Maybe if you want to put YOUR money on the line and offer it to Google to challenge this bad ruling go ahead, but don't expect them to put their own ass on the line for it. No company is going to challenge any of these delisting requests, it's far too dangerous and costly. If they receive 100k requests and 1% are "bad" they'd face over 1000 lawsuits for guessing wrong. 1000 lawsuits would take at least 1000 lawyers for probably upwards of 100 billable hours at around $500 an hour which is 50 million dollars in just legal expenses. In reality each case would need 3-5 lawyers, a couple paralegals and a bunch of expert witnesses and probably more than 500 hours overall. If they get even half of them wrong and have to pay $50k in damages each time they will bankrupt their European divisions. The magnitude of this ruling makes it economically impossible for anyone to challenge any delisting request. Even having a lawyer review each request for validity would set them back hundreds of millions of dollars. Any attempt to argue otherwise is either willfully ignorant of the reality of business or a pigheaded stupidity that it's Google's job to defend free speech. It's not and they will do whatever is cheapest for them as they should. This is a European problem that can only be fixed at the legislative level by the people of Europe. This "right to be forgotten" is an unworkable mess that is impossible to police and it's going to absolutely gut the value of search engines in Europe when looking up individuals. That's the bed they made and now they get to lay in it.

    3. Re:Article is wrong by Halo1 · · Score: 2

      You can go first by defining such a rule about the first, second, fourth, ... amendment to the US Constitution. I'll even let you include all judgements by the Supreme Court on that particular amendment. Laws and judgements involving fundamental/inalienable (human) rights are never condensable into a simplistic rule.

      Which is totally and completely irrelevant to this discussion and a rather poor attempt at a straw man.

      How is asking you to do exactly the same as what you were asking of me a straw man? I was just trying to illustrate what I wrote above: "Laws and judgements involving fundamental/inalienable (human) rights are never condensable into a simplistic rule."

      Your argument of Google not being a civil rights NGO (even leaving aside the issue that, once again, this is about a clash between different civil rights rather than against the oppression of civil rights period), or me spending money on fighting the ruling, are however great straw men: I never claimed they would fight it out of altruism, and I literally said I didn't mind the judgement at all (so why would I want to spend money fighting it?).

      Google would try to convince judges that it interpreted the judgement in a reasonable way simply because the alternative seriously threatens their business model. As to the drama about Google risking fines and whatnot: companies skirt tax, employment, competition and other laws/judgements all the time if those even threaten to reduce their bottom line. Not to mention that, again, this judgement explicitly gives search engine companies the mandate to decide in part for themselves what is reasonable and what is not, unlike tax/employment/competition laws.

      --
      Donate free food here
  15. Chilling Effects clone for search removals? by timrod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How long until a clone of Chilling Effects comes around and indexes all of the removals under the "right to be forgotten" law? Google could even link to them the same way they do Chilling Effects for sites that have been de-listed due to DMCA notices.

    1. Re:Chilling Effects clone for search removals? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      They already do this in fact, using the very same Chilling Effects links.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. wait by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Wait a second. We have to think on this critically.
    It was my understanding that the ruling meant that if someone searched for YOU they wouldn't find things about you anymore.
    If the BBC had an article about raising Goats, and that article mentioned John Sheldon the internets foremost Goat expert...
    If you searched for John Sheldon, you'd not find anything. But if you searched for "raising goats" you would.

    Is Google playing games here? Or is this really what is legally required? It seems rather strange that they'd remove an entire BBC article from ALL search results just because 1 guy was mentioned. What if they had a forum section like most news sites do and this guy was an avid poster. Could he then get the entire BBC removed from google? I pretty much comment on every Slashdot story (or damned near it) If I used my real name could I get Slashdot de-listed? If so, this is going to be hilarious.

    1. Re:wait by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They didn't remove the article entirely.

      we are no longer able to show the following pages from your website in response to certain searches on European versions of Google:

      They don't say which searches, but the wording implies that searches for Stan O'Neal will be affected. But searches for the former CEO of Merril Lynch should work just fine.

  17. Dictatorship by guises · · Score: 2

    Had to read that three times before it stopped saying dictatorship and started saying directorship.

  18. The right to be forgotten is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This law is just a workaround for the fact that humans don't think critically about the possible inaccuracy of information found on the Internet. Censorship (which is exactly what this is) is a greater crime against society, and should not be used here.

    Instead, we should require that employers, load evaluators, etc., be limited to what sources of information they can use when making a life-impacting decision. Such a law is hard to enforce, of course, but is better than this misguided censorship.

    1. Re:The right to be forgotten is stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The problem with quotations on the Internet is that it is difficult to verify the authenticity of the source."
      --Abraham Lincoln.

  19. Re:EU has gone too far for my tastes by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    Well, the EU has gone to far in the direction of personal rights, and the obligations that imposes on companies.

    While the US has gone too far in the direction of corporate rights, and how they can screw us over at will. Because, you know, corporations now have religious freedom to be assholes.

    But what about my right to tell my friends that that asshole just screwed me out of a ton of money and that he can't be trusted?

    Oddly enough, as long as you can do it without actually committing libel or slander, you still have this right. You just have to phrase it correctly.

    The EU 'right to be forgotten' only applies to search engines. It does not (AFAIK) restrict private individuals from actually remembering this stuff, telling others about, and providing links to it.

    You just won't be able to find the links using a search engine.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  20. Re:Streisand effect by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

    It does now. Because it's rare and uncommon. And if it goes well for him and people like him, then you're going to see more and more people performing PR campaigns on their own histories, re-writing the past, and burying their past sins.

    The streisand effect only happens when someone steps out of line and deviates from the norm. It was an oddity that Streisand sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for some aerial photography. Because it made waves, it attracted eyeballs.

    Stan O'Neal using this law is a oddity right now. Let's see how commonplace it is in 5 years.

  21. Re: Not Voluntarily by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In general I applaud the EU ruling *if* it really gets implemented fairly. But there's all sorts of wiggles to mess around with.

    We've been focusing on "that one guy" but look at this note way at the bottom of the article:

    "It is only a few days since the ruling has been implemented - and Google tells me that since then it has received a staggering 50,000 requests for articles to be removed from European searches."

    And that's 50K requests in a few days.

    Google can afford to hire "the army of paralegals", but does the ruling extend to smaller services? You can delist-bomb a small site out of existence when someone manages a "DDOS Distributed De-List of Service" attack on every article in their entire catalog. Then you get games where people try to de-list each other's materials.

    Not that I am a fan of Google, but I can bet a senior lawyer at Google is saying "well hell, besides the cost, if we have taken down seventeen million articles on all kinds of topics, there goes our ten year competitive advantage of useful searches."

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  22. I have to wonder by aitikin · · Score: 4, Informative

    If Google is really just trying to show how flawed this is. After all, if you search him (I popped over to google.co.uk as I'm in the US) that blog certainly does not come up, but about the entire first page of hits (especially if you throw bbc in as well) is about how that page will not come up because of this ruling...

    --
    "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    1. Re:I have to wonder by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      It would be awesome if browsers provide add-ins that search using the US Google, then highlight the differences.

  23. Re: Not Voluntarily by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We can call it the Ministry of Truth

  24. Re:Streisand effect by I_Wrote_This · · Score: 2

    The "right to be forgotten" applies to an individual? What about the "right to be able to remember (or find out)", which applies to everyone else?

  25. Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg...
    etc.

    Pass the word.

  26. Malicious Compliance by rsborg · · Score: 2

    From das wiki:

    Malicious compliance is the behavior of a person who intentionally inflicts harm by strictly following the orders of management or following legal compulsions, knowing that compliance with the orders will cause a loss of some form resulting in damage to the manager's business or reputation, or a loss to an employee or subordinate. It has the effect of harming leadership, or the leadership harming a subordinate.[1] A specific form of industrial action that utilizes this is work-to-rule.

    Also see Lawful Evil.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting