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.

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      And the events of the article are less than a decade old, so the article is definitely not outdated.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

  2. 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?

  3. 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
  4. 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'."

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

    We can call it the Ministry of Truth