European Commission Spokesman: Google Removing Link Was "not a Good Judgement"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

European Commission Spokesman: Google Removing Link Was "not a Good Judgement"

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday July 3, 2014 @09:26PM from the we've-always-been-at-war-with-Eastasia dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with this article from the BBC about Google's recent removal of a news story from search results. "Google's decision to remove a BBC article from some of its search results was "not a good judgement", a European Commission spokesman has said. A link to an article by Robert Peston was taken down under the European court's "right to be forgotten" ruling. But Ryan Heath, spokesman for the European Commission's vice-president, said he could not see a "reasonable public interest" for the action. He said the ruling should not allow people to "Photoshop their lives". The BBC understands that Google is sifting through more than 250,000 web links people wanted removed."

150 of 210 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well, duh... by bradley13 · 2014-07-03 21:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

...but that's exactly what the ruling does. The original case was a businessman objecting to Google links to newpaper stories about his life. This is no different.
Fact is, the court that issued this ruling screwed up big time. Perhaps, if Google can find a few more egregious deletions to make, the European Parliament will correct the error.

--
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
1. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 21:41 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  No it doesn't, it's based on existing judgements. People didn't have the right to photoshop before, and they shouldn't now.
  This is a social right and so the right to be forgotten should only be applied if most people would agree it can be forgotten. It's always been the case that if you're a well known person you're SOL.
  It's supposed to be used by random John Doe's who got listed for something that is now completely irrelevent. The more well known you are, the less becomes irrelevent.
  Ironically, the richer you are the more relevent your history becomes and the less you can protect.
2. Re:Well, duh... by Trepidity · 2014-07-03 21:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The original case was a newspaper notice of a personal bankruptcy of a pretty obscure person, while this is a story about a very public CEO resignation. The decision is a bit of a mess, I agree, but this case pretty clearly falls outside its scope, which explicitly says that stories involving public roles are excluded (which resigning as CEO of Merill Lynch certainly counts as).
  From the explanatory summary (pdf) that accompanied the decision, explaining when search-engine operators may turn down removal requests:
  
  The request may for example be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to have access to the information in question justifies showing the links in Google search results.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
3. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 21:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I rather suspect that was the point. Google is deliberately waving around the stupidest example of the implementation of the law they could find in hopes that somebody will notice what a bad idea the law was.
  It doesn't even take activism to inspire this, what business wants to pay someone to sort through people requesting that the picture of them kissing the fat chick while drunk be taken down?
4. Re:Well, duh... by Frobnicator · 2014-07-03 21:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  ...but that's exactly what the ruling does. The original case was a businessman objecting to Google links to newpaper stories about his life.
  The whole concept of the law applying to everybody is surprising sometimes. ;-)
  Anybody can request that data about themselves can be deleted. The law also allows links to be removed. The business can comply, or claim they have a reason outlined in the law, such as a business need for record keeping. If they fight it the person can fight it through the courts. If enough people fight it the company will suffer the pains of thousands of lawsuits.
  While the news stories themselves can remain under the terms of the law, it is no surprise that people absolutely will try to make things hard to find. That's the entire point of the law. It applies to not just convicted criminals but also to politicians and prominent figures. ANYBODY can request that data be deleted under the terms of the law.
  The law is to allow things to fade from the collective memory and makes it difficult for them to be found.
  Removing the link to unsavory things IS the purpose. This IS what the law was designed for.
  The expressed right to be forgotten includes forgetting about news stories.
  I suppose next people will be upset when links to all negative stories related to upcoming politicians will suddenly vanish under the requests.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
5. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  The kind of business that takes government money to do government censorship...
6. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's not ironic that rich people need to be less protected, they own much over protection in other ways, it's just, indeed.
7. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 22:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "pretty obscure person" vs "very public CEO" is a matter of *your* perspective. If you're looking to go into business with the "pretty obscure person" then it's highly relevant for you. In both cases they are public articles by newspapers.
  What should happen is these requests should be put to the newspapers themselves, except then everyone would realize that it's censorship. And that's exactly what it is. So instead we have the silliness of asking a rich search company to do contortions to do filtering instead.
8. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 22:10 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  google is in a no win situation here. The sheer volumne of material they have to sift through makes it impossible to hire enough people, but the decisions require personal attention. If Europe wants to specify every link google can and cannot make available then they need to let google know in a timely manner. They want it both ways.
9. Re:Well, duh... by sg_oneill · 2014-07-03 22:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It all strikes down to why law can be so complicated. When done right, laws are subtle things.
  Ideally we'd like a "right to be forgotten" that means when I ask Facebook to delete my account, then by delete I mean "not a single bit of my accounts data remains". What we DONT want however is if I go raping or beating people I can get news articles about me supressed. Distilling those distinctions into laws however can end up quite tricky because of all the edge cases.
  That requires legal expertise, and unfortunatlely whatever law results is going to be complicated and full of edge cases.
  Which, of course means nobody is going to understand the bloody thing.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
10. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  No, it does not work as you said. We, in Europe, are not under Common Law as US people are. Here it works differently, we're based on a written law that needs to be read before applied, and the single sentence from the European Court does not rule anything in fact. It just rules out the need for a new ruling that the parliament writes and approves AFTER the sentence of the Court (that only rules the ammend by Google to the victim). Simply, the ruling was written and approved very fastly and then we have a ruling for other people. You cannot base your decisions on the single sentence, in Europe (even if you can do that in England).
11. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023849447_citylightbrandxml.html
  City Light hires online results firm to polish its CEO’s image
12. Re:Well, duh... by gbjbaanb · 2014-07-03 22:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  in this particular case, the guy the article was about didn't make the 'forgetme' request, it was some Joe Schmoe who was objecting to a comment he posted in the comment section under it.
  I don't know if the guy's comment is irrelevant now, I doubt it as it was just some feeble comment he wrote - not an article directly about that user. It could be he wrote something he is now embarrassed about, but more likely it is just some dick who wanted to try the system out.
13. Re:Well, duh... by Zocalo · 2014-07-03 22:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Fact is, the court that issued this ruling screwed up big time. Perhaps, if Google can find a few more egregious deletions to make, the European Parliament will correct the error.
  Fact is, the European Parliament passed a law that was so full of holes that it was inevitably going to be abused before it was passed and, despite this being pointed out frequently, they went ahead and passed the law anyway instead of maybe taking a bit of time to plug some of the holes and clarifing under what circumstances is could and, more importantly, could not be used. At least it's starting to look like some members of the EC are starting to realise that the EP messed up, but somehow I doubt that they are going to be able to convince their colleagues to do anything about it because that would entail them effectively admitting that they messed up.
  
  --
  UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
14. Re:Well, duh... by Karmashock · 2014-07-03 22:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  agreed... the eu had a stupid ruling that is having predictably stupid consequences.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
15. Re:Well, duh... by drinkypoo · 2014-07-03 22:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The original case was a newspaper notice of a personal bankruptcy of a pretty obscure person, while this is a story about a very public CEO resignation.
  And yet, that is completely and utterly irrelevant because either way, the public interest is harmed, not served, by permitting someone to hide facts. That will never make the world a better place.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:Well, duh... by FireFury03 · 2014-07-03 22:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ...but that's exactly what the ruling does. The original case was a businessman objecting to Google links to newpaper stories about his life. This is no different.
  Fact is, the court that issued this ruling screwed up big time. Perhaps, if Google can find a few more egregious deletions to make, the European Parliament will correct the error.
  I think the big problem here is that Google are expected to be the judge, jury and executioner and are getting smacked down when someone thinks they made the wrong judgement call. This stuff should be going to an independent judge instead of expecting Google to uphold a new law that has a fairly vague scope.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
17. Re:Well, duh... by jellomizer · 2014-07-03 22:28 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  European legal system is a big scam and shouldn't be listened to. Got it.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
18. Re:Well, duh... by Frobnicator · 2014-07-03 22:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think the big problem here is that Google are expected to be the judge, jury and executioner and are getting smacked down when someone thinks they made the wrong judgement call. This stuff should be going to an independent judge instead of expecting Google to uphold a new law that has a fairly vague scope.
  Yeah, that would work.
  The article states that Google alone is getting over 1000 requests per day. How many other companies are getting requests, and at what rate?
  While it would be ideal for some humans to look at the tens of thousands of requests made daily and carefully judge the merits of the request, it won't happen.
  It won't happen for the same reason real people don't look at the DMCA takedown lists.
  There are too many, and it is easier to just automate the system than to validate that every single line item is an actually infringing item. It won't take long before the requests become fully automated much like the DMCA lists are. People will download a simple tool that scours the interwebz for your name, then submits takedown requests for every match. There will be many incorrect matches made as the plebeian masses use the simple automated tools.
  
  --
  //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
19. Re:Well, duh... by drinkypoo · 2014-07-03 22:34 · Score: 2
  
  Fact is, the European Parliament passed a law that was so full of holes that it was inevitably going to be abused before it was passed and, despite this being pointed out frequently, they went ahead and passed the law anyway instead of maybe taking a bit of time to plug some of the holes
  you can't plug the holes in a fishing net designed to catch as many fish as possible. at least, not without a whole lot of dolphins
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:Well, duh... by Megol · 2014-07-03 22:35 · Score: 1
  
  Right. So those teenagers that sent pictures of themselves to a boy/girlfriend and now have those same pictures available on the Internet with name and addresses? Yes public interest is served by removing those!
  But if you insist you are free to post nude pictures of yourself with name address and other facts attached.
21. Re:Well, duh... by Megol · 2014-07-03 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  jellomizer is utterly retarded. Got it.
22. Re:Well, duh... by Trepidity · 2014-07-03 22:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yeah, the big practical problem with this decision is that it requires case-by-case analysis, which is probably impractical at Google's scale. This particular case is really pretty clear-cut: it's the former CEO of Merrill Lynch, and it's a story about his CEOship. If Google did case-by-case analysis, it would be easy to reject this takedown request as easily within the scope of the "public role" exception. However they probably (for understandable reasons) don't want to do that kind of case-by-case decision making.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
23. Re:Well, duh... by ChromeAeonium · 2014-07-03 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  Is Google actually being compensate for this though? Perhaps the EU should start their own Ministry to censor what people should just forget and cut out the middleman.
24. Re:Well, duh... by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-03 23:06 · Score: 2
  
  ...but that's exactly what the ruling does.
  No, it isn't. It wasn't even the guy mentioned in the article who requested the removal, it was someone who wrote a comment on the article. If you search for "Stan O'Neal" the article still comes up, it's only searching for the commenter's name that has been censored. The commenter is not a public figure, just a random internet user.
  This morning on the radio a spokesperson from Google was quite clear that they would not allow public figures to use the right to be forgotten in this way. They only acted because the comment writer is a non-notable member of the public and there is no public-interest angle.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:Well, duh... by Richard_at_work · 2014-07-03 23:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the main issue I have is that this EC spokesman is expecting Google to make decisions regarding the public interest rather than erring on the side of caution and removing everything - the moment they do make decisions regarding the public interest, you can bet your arse they will be hauled back into court and have to justify themselves.
  So by going to the extreme and implementing the ruling across the board (barring obvious requests that can be rejected), Google is protecting themselves and showing what a stupid ruling it is in the first place. There is no alternative approach that Google can take that doesn't open them up to further legal action.
26. Re:Well, duh... by khallow · 2014-07-03 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  Here it works differently, we're based on a written law that needs to be read before applied, and the single sentence from the European Court does not rule anything in fact.
  Ok, how is that relevant? Common law is written law too.
27. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 23:09 · Score: 1
  
  But if you insist you are free to post nude pictures of yourself with name address and other facts attached.
  *sigh*
  Saying that censorship is wrong once information has already been put up is 100% different from saying that individuals should themselves upload all this personal information.
  You hypocrisy-seekers (tu quoque is a fallacy, by the way) should do a better job of looking for actual hypocrisy.
28. Re:Well, duh... by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-03 23:14 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And yet, that is completely and utterly irrelevant because either way, the public interest is harmed, not served, by permitting someone to hide facts. That will never make the world a better place.
  In Europe we aim to rehabilitate people who made mistakes. People who make financial mistakes, broke the law or just generally did something stupid in public are given the opportunity to move past those mistakes and have them forgotten. The law enforces that to a reasonable degree - it can't erase old newspaper articles, but it does allow a person not to mention certain criminal convictions or hide historic bankruptcies from the bank after a period of time.
  I understand it is different in the US. Criminals in particular are branded for life, no matter what their crime or what kind of life they live after being punished. We don't do that here, and consider it in the public interest to give people these opportunities so that they can be productive members of society again.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
29. Re:Well, duh... by xelah · 2014-07-03 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  The directive is from nearly 20 years ago so I doubt there are many MEPs or commissioners who couldn't blame their predecessors if they wanted to, or point out that few people were really expecting Google and the Internet as it is now. Besides, it's been working OK for a long time (except for continuing poor enforcement). It was written to stop companies selling on your data as sales leads, credit reference agencies giving out inaccurate data you're not allowed to see or correct, employers keeping irrelevant or inaccurate records about you or keeping it far longer than they need it, organizations asking for your data for one reason and then using it for another, employers keeping (or 'obtaining') lists of union members/activists, and so on.
  The difficult bit is keeping all of that whilst handling search engines appropriately.
30. Re:Well, duh... by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-03 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Fact is, the European Parliament passed a law
  The problem is that they didn't pass a law and are simply relying on the older Data Protection rules that were written in the mid 90s. Member states have not been able to agree on updated rules that would clarify this issue, so the courts must rule based on existing ones.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re:Well, duh... by jabuzz · 2014-07-03 23:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Requiring the removal of incorrect data anywhere is perfectly reasonable. The problem is that now links to 100% factually correct data has to be removed if the person involved no longer likes it.
32. Re:Well, duh... by ray-auch · 2014-07-03 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  What we DONT want however is if I go raping or beating people I can get news articles about me supressed.
  
  But that is exactly what the ruling does. Someone got into legal trouble, some time ago (over 12yrs), and complained to the court that it was unfair to have his legal troubles still come up in search results - and the court agreed.
  As an offline example, as long as your raping and beating didn't get you more than four years in prison, in UK law your conviction would be "spent" after at most 7 years after release, and you would then not have to disclose it to employers etc. In such a case, it seems perfectly clear that this ruling would then apply to search results covering your conviction - after all, not much point in saying you don't have to put it on the job application if it's on the front page when your prospective employer puts your name into Google.
  The issue (as the GP says) is that the law applies to _everybody_
  - people who are good and just made a mistake a long time ago and want a level playing field with those that didn't make a mistake
  - people who were bad but are now reformed and want a level playing field with those that were good all along
  - people who were bad, still are bad, and don't want you to find out easily
  Who is going to determine what sort of person the complainant is ?
33. Re:Well, duh... by martin-boundary · 2014-07-03 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but not all true facts should remain in Google's index either. For example, half of all slashdot readers argue regularly that disclosing true documents to the public was traitorous as soon as Snowden did it, and that Google shouldn't link to them. Or think of this: disclosing the true address of a battered wife can lead to her husband finding her and beating her up, or worse. I'm sure you can find lots of examples yourself if you apply your mind to it.
34. Re:Well, duh... by pjt33 · 2014-07-03 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  "A new law that has a fairly vague scope"? It's a law which dates back to 1995, and its scope is fairly clear. See the ECJ's Factsheet.
35. Re:Well, duh... by NicBenjamin · 2014-07-03 23:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The original case was a newspaper notice of a personal bankruptcy of a pretty obscure person, while this is a story about a very public CEO resignation. The decision is a bit of a mess, I agree, but this case pretty clearly falls outside its scope, which explicitly says that stories involving public roles are excluded (which resigning as CEO of Merill Lynch certainly counts as).
  From the explanatory summary (pdf) that accompanied the decision, explaining when search-engine operators may turn down removal requests:
  
  The request may for example be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to have access to the information in question justifies showing the links in Google search results.
  I don't believe you understand why google's pissed.
  They're a for-profit American corporation. They make money selling information to people. They keep costs low but refusing to use actual humans to do any of the work, when computer algorithm will work fine.
  But this ruling specifically assumes they have an actual person sitting around, with nothing to do but read these requests, and then spend an hour trying to figure out if Jose Juerez in this story is a nobody who can use his right to be forgotten, or he's a Jose Juarez who is a figure of public interest. Moreover the guy has to know every EU language, every EU minority language (so Sorbian with an 'o' counts, because German citizen Sorbians are also EU Citizens), prominent local non-EU languages (such as Serbian, with an e), and probably also at least a smattering or major world languages like Russian and Chinese.
  Since that person does not actually exist, they either have to hire a staff of several dozen, or they have to hire a couple really good lawyers who know the more prominent EU languages (ie: a Frenchmen, an Englishman, a German, maybe a Scandinavian because most of them can at least BS their way through all four of those languages, etc.), and then pull poor Nicolo Popescu from his team in analytics when a Romanian has a request. Then you have to hope Nicolo (hired for his ability to see patterns in data, not his communications skills), and the EU-fluent-lawyer he's talking to can communicate some very sophisticated legal concepts to each-other.
  So even if they only have 50k requests, as the BBC reported, this is not a cheap program for them to administer. They're paying something on the order of $150-400 an hour per person they hire because you need multi-lingual lawyers, they need to bring in the random dude who happens to know Gaelic once a month, they need to do some pretty strong googling of their own to confirm the complaints aren't BS generated by Yahoo bots specifically to fuck over their bottom line, etc. 50,000 complaints times $150 is $7,500,000 so even if each one only takes an hour (and it'll be more like five, especially for EU languages that aren't world languages like Italian or Portuguese), 250k complaints (as in this summary) is nearly $40 million assuming that they only take an hour. It's probably gonna be closer to the $250 million range by the time they actually get done investigating. And that's in seven weeks. Over a full year this is is is almost certainly gonna cost them $1-$2 Billion.
  So in other words google has two option. Agree to hire it's own Eurocrats for roughly $1 Billion a year, or make an algorithm that automatically accepts any request. As an American corporation they are loathe to spend that money on regulatory compliance until the actual regulators actually rule they actually have to have staff costing an actual $1 Billion. Note that, in general, each use of 'actual' in that last sentence requires at least one court ruling. American corporations really, really, really hate spending
36. Re:Well, duh... by Ardyvee · 2014-07-03 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  I think it would be best if we disclosed that her husband has been beating her up to the police. However, in the land of imperfect solutions, not disclosing that information is good starting point. But instead of a "right-to-be-forgotten", shouldn't that be something along the lines of screaming "fire" in a full theater (or otherwise enclosed space with lots of people)?
  
  --
  I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
37. Re:Well, duh... by martin-boundary · 2014-07-03 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  Eh? Nobody's stopping you from remembering. That would be very difficult, and I suspect it would possibly involve trepanning.
38. Re:Well, duh... by NicBenjamin · 2014-07-03 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  Politician's ability to change their minds is remarkable.
  Most of the members of the US House who were there under GW Bush voted for everything he wanted. Now almost all of them identify him as an un-conservative deficit-spending big government hypocrite. Paul Ryan is the best example.
  In this case it would be fairly simple to solve the problem: send a couple dozen of their multi-lingual lawyers to a google campus to go through the requests with google. That actually does not require that they change their minds at all, it just requires that they decide to spend money. If they get embaressed enough they'll find the4 money, blame the cuts/taxes/etc.. on Google, and watch their poll-numbers skyrocket.
39. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 00:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We need more dicks like this, then, to point out the absurdity of the system. I hope Google responds to all such requests, and that they leave a gap on their search page with a message "This link has been removed in support of the right to be forgotten" in its place.
40. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Hold on, let me
  1) Reply to your comment as an identified regular citizen (my name is Joe Brown of Wilcoxshirehamster, England), and
  2) Now I feel my reply was foolish and I'd like it to be forgotten. I'm going to have to ask Google to remove its link to this page, which includes my comment.
  I guess I have the right to make YOU forgotten by proxy?
41. Re:Well, duh... by Carewolf · 2014-07-04 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  What law? There is no new law here. Only existing national laws. All that is happening now is that Google has to obey existing national laws that forbid republishing certain facts. So which British law required them to remove the link? Or is it Google that are just making up rules as they go now?
42. Re:Well, duh... by Ardyvee · 2014-07-04 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Companies should be legally required to provide evidence of such claims. Not saying things is not Photoshopping their public persona. It's just not showing all of their public persona. If they encouraged news sources to hide/delete/not report that information, then yes, they would be.
  photoshopping is a misused term anyway. We should be using manipulation. Photoshopping, as /. should know, is modification/manipulation of a digital image with Photoshop (by Adobe), a term that later simply meant manipulation of images with appropiate software and is now being extended to things that are not digital images, but shouldn't. Just as we shouldn't extend "to google"'s meaning to "search anything anywhere".
  
  --
  I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
43. Re:Well, duh... by NicBenjamin · 2014-07-04 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  European legal system is a big scam and shouldn't be listened to. Got it.
  The system he describes is actually pretty common.
  Under the actual words written into Canadian law, for example, the Prime Minister is a person who gets paid, not an important leader, because the only mention of a Prime Minister in the Canadian Constitution or statutes is his salary. The Constitution describes a guy who acts like a mini-Prime Minister on the Queen's behalf (the "chair of the Privy Council"), but pretty much the entire legal basis for the Canadian government is (and always has been) a phrase in the preamble to their Constitution that says the Constitution is "a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom."
  A lot of very important stuff is totally unwritten, except for a Court decision saying that if they need the law in the future they damn well better write it. Their Constitution, for example, has a long list of the balance of power between the Federal government and the provinces (note: provinces are a lot more powerful then states), but says nothing about secession. Then Quebec wanted to do it, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that they had to have that right or freedom was BS, and that the Federal Parliament would just have to go along with their secession by passing a law governing said secession; but said law has never been passed because the referendum failed. So the actual text of all Canadian law on secession is that one Court decision saying "Deal with it motherfuckers."
44. Re:Well, duh... by khallow · 2014-07-04 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  Google is not a court. They don't get to decide not to follow a court ruling.
45. Re:Well, duh... by FireFury03 · 2014-07-04 00:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "A new law that has a fairly vague scope"? It's a law which dates back to 1995, and its scope is fairly clear. See the ECJ's Factsheet.
  The whole idea of treating a news report as "personal data" seems completely flawed to me.
  But in any case, there seems to be a "public interest" judgement to be made, with respect to this law. In general I think "public interest" judgements need to be made by judges and other public organisations within an established framework, rather than as ad-hoc judgements by private businesses.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
46. Re:Well, duh... by NicBenjamin · 2014-07-04 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...but that's exactly what the ruling does. The original case was a businessman objecting to Google links to newpaper stories about his life. This is no different.
  Fact is, the court that issued this ruling screwed up big time. Perhaps, if Google can find a few more egregious deletions to make, the European Parliament will correct the error.
  I think the big problem here is that Google are expected to be the judge, jury and executioner and are getting smacked down when someone thinks they made the wrong judgement call. This stuff should be going to an independent judge instead of expecting Google to uphold a new law that has a fairly vague scope.
  And not only do they have to be judge, jury, and executioner; they have to do it in every language anyone in Europe speaks.
  If an Italian gets in a car wreck on the Isle of Lewis, and then wants to be forgotten 10 years later, you have to have someone who knows Gaelic on hand to read the blog post the other guy wrote about it.
47. Re:Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  The original case was a newspaper notice of a personal bankruptcy of a pretty obscure person, while this is a story about a very public CEO resignation. The decision is a bit of a mess, I agree, but this case pretty clearly falls outside its scope, which explicitly says that stories involving public roles are excluded (which resigning as CEO of Merill Lynch certainly counts as).
  From the explanatory summary (pdf) that accompanied the decision, explaining when search-engine operators may turn down removal requests:
  
  The request may for example be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to have access to the information in question justifies showing the links in Google search results.
  So, you'd say a businessman who has had a personal bankrupsy should be able to remove any evidence publicly available even though those doing business with him are financially invested in him but a man removing himself from position of CEO should not, even if none of his following positions are as CEO?
48. Re:Well, duh... by u38cg · 2014-07-04 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  The point that is being missed on most sides is that the subjects of the story are not the issue, it is an unknown commenter on the blog article.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
49. Re: Well, duh... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-04 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  We definitely should use Google' and Photoshop that way in everyday language. If we do it enough Google and Adobe will lose their trademarks.
50. Re:Well, duh... by Gravis+Zero · 2014-07-04 00:56 · Score: 2
  
  agreed... the eu had a stupid ruling that is having predictably stupid consequences.
  the obvious solution is to have all mentions of it removed from internet search results. ;)
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
51. Re:Well, duh... by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-04 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  It applies to not just convicted criminals but also to politicians and prominent figures.
  No. Public figures are specifically excluded because there is a public interest aspect. The court was very clear that it only intended the law to be used in situations where the person has no public standing and there is no public interest argument.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
52. Re: Well, duh... by mjtaylor24601 · 2014-07-04 01:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If the cost of ethically maintaining their services becomes excessive, they can bear the cost ir shut down.
  The cost of "ethically" maintaining their service is that sometimes a case will fall through the cracks and information that probably should have remained available will be unduly censored because Google can't afford to do exhaustive analysis of every request that comes in. And that's a cost we all get to bear.
  
  --
  I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
53. Re: Well, duh... by thaylin · 2014-07-04 01:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Umm, they are not the stewards of the information, they just point to it. It is not their jobs to police the internet for you.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
54. Re: Well, duh... by drinkypoo · 2014-07-04 01:27 · Score: 2
  
  It's not 100% different from discovering your ex-girlfriend has posted that info about you, and wanting it taken down.
  Except there are already laws for that, and this wasn't necessary. If those laws didn't cover enough of the EU, they could have been expanded, instead of creating a law which would also permit suppression of information that clearly is in the public interest.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
55. Re:Well, duh... by fyngyrz · 2014-07-04 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  people who were bad, still are bad, and don't want you to find out easily
  So the best solution is to brand everyone as untrustworthy? Please. If person X is still bad, that's a matter for law enforcement. Not for your back-fence gossip fest.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
56. Re:Well, duh... by wisnoskij · 2014-07-04 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  That is another big problem. Google should onyl get requests for content they specifically host, and in the cast of google blogs it should go to the original content creators themselves. Google should be getting zero requests the only content they create is a few employee blog posts and new announcements.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
57. Re:Well, duh... by thaylin · 2014-07-04 01:36 · Score: 2
  
  Except they ruled for a Businessman, who by nature has a public standing, so it is very contradictory.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
58. Re:Well, duh... by swillden · 2014-07-04 01:43 · Score: 2
  
  Just one correction, not related to your point:
  
  They make money selling information to people.
  What Google actually sells is an advertising service, which is made more effective by using information in two ways, first to attract viewers, and second to decide which of the viewers is likely to be interested in which ads. The phrase "selling information" sounds like they're providing information to a party who gives them money in return, which isn't what Google does.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
59. Re:Well, duh... by Ardyvee · 2014-07-04 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, it should be handled by a court or an entity empowered to do so by the government, and not a private company. And yes, she would probably have to tell the people working at that place why she wants it removed, preferably with proof, so that they know she isn't trying to wipe her slate clean. Because, yes, they should err on the side of not removing. Just as the US Justice system requires people to prove their claim instead of assuming it's true (the defendant is guilty).
  But this isn't what this law is about. At least, that's not what I understand it to be about. For this given example, there should be a very specific law designed to handle it properly. This is more about forgetting things that you did (and somebody wrote on the internet), and not cases where you are a victim of a crime. At least, that's what I understand it to be for.
  
  --
  I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
60. Re:Well, duh... by BlueScreenO'Life · 2014-07-04 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  However they probably (for understandable reasons) don't want to do that kind of case-by-case decision making.
  Regardless of how understandable their reasons are, if they aren't making the decisions case-by-case, then they are blatantly refusing to honour the ruling. However, I don't think that's what they are doing. I want to think they're simply employing the wrong people to make those decisions.
  Anyway, I agree the ruling was a mess, but for another reason. The biggest problem I see is the failure to consider other search engines. They can probably force Bing to honour the ruling, because MS, like Google, has a corporate presence in the EU, but what about all the other, current and future, search engines?
  The thing with the original case was that it was about information of a kind that doesn't belong in a newspaper at all. It was not a news piece, not an analysis piece, not an opinion piece. It was part of an excerpt of a government-issued journal. Those journals are available online. At the time the notice was published (the 90s in Spain), many if not most people didn't have access to the internet or didn't even know they could find the government journals online, so it may have made sense to publish portions of them on the newspapers. Today, it doesn't make sense to keep that information on the newspapers online. If they don't delete it (no, that would NOT be censorship - the information can still be found online, on the government's site), they should at least mark it as non-searchable in robots.txt.
61. Re:Well, duh... by thaylin · 2014-07-04 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  Then give them clear rules, not the rubbish they have, require a court to send them a list that they must disable. It is not correct to have them have to deal with the vagueness and decide what to do in all situaitons.
  
  --
  When you cant win, ad hominem.
62. Re:Well, duh... by TapeCutter · 2014-07-04 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Agree, the whole RTBF thing is needlessly creating problems for companies like google, google are naturally going to start upsetting the likes of BBC, sky News, et-al to try and get them on-side. Europe has libel, defamation, and stalking laws already so if someone is harassing you online or telling porky-pies about you then you already have the legal tools to set the record straight. Embarrass yourself in public? - Bad luck I'd say, we've all had days we'd rather forget.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
63. Re: Well, duh... by TheRealHocusLocus · 2014-07-04 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  We definitely should use Google' and Photoshop that way in everyday language. If we do it enough Google and Adobe will lose their trademarks.
  I xerox that remark!
  
  --
  <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
64. Re:Well, duh... by Attila+Dimedici · 2014-07-04 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't delete it (no, that would NOT be censorship -...
  If they delete it because they chose to delete it, it is not censorship. If they delete it because the government told them to, it IS censorship, whether or not that information is available elsewhere.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
65. Re:Well, duh... by KramberryKoncerto · 2014-07-04 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  The "right" to be forgotten has not yet made its way of being seen as a universal human right on par with free speech. Arguably it's often contradictory to free speech. It is not even well-defined; the name "right" was slapped on it too early before the matter was discussed enough. A concern of public interest is still valid here, and it should not affect the way people should view other rights.
66. Re:Well, duh... by wallsg · 2014-07-04 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  I have to correct you here. What Goggle actually sells is you and your information so that personalized ads can be targeted directly to you. That's why they scan your email and want you to disclose all of that nice, personal information in Google+.
  It's the same with broadcast television. You aren't the customer buying the product (TV shows) with your watching the commercials the price. The advertiser is the customer buying the product and the product is you. The TV show is part of the Costs of Goods Sold.
67. Re:Well, duh... by bmo · 2014-07-04 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  >right to be forgotten
  Does not exist. Anywhere.
  It didn't exist before the Internet, and it doesn't exist now. It's a complete fiction. People remember things. People save newspaper clippings. Friends/family remember that time you got drunk and hit on the waitress who thought you were disgusting and rude and put you in your place.
  For example:
  Michael Kent, of Saunderstown, RI pissed all of us off in the neighborhood 20 years ago because he bought an illegally subdivided lot and threw a temper tantrum, cut down the trees and painted the tree stumps bright pink. He doesn't get to erase that from "history" and my right to look that up in the Providence Journal and repost it shall not be infringed.
  --
  BMO
68. Re:Well, duh... by StToast · 2014-07-04 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  I would say they sell access to you for advertising. As an advertiser, you designate how many people you would like to targeted for your adverstising, based on your requested triggers/demographics. Google takes your order, and presents the ads to their users. It's not like they take the order, and then present the infomation to the advertiser to be used. They (Google) take the request and serve the ads provided by the advertiser to the people that they decide should see it based on the information that they (again Google) have.
69. Re: Well, duh... by Solandri · 2014-07-04 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's why Google shouldn't be wasting time trying to do this. It's not their job, and the task is damned if they do, damned if they don't.
  
  They should simply invert the process - remove every search result older than x years from the countries affected by this court decision. Pre-comply with all possible cases before people submit privacy takedown requests. Then provide the court with a list of all removed content and say they will add each removed link back if and when the court approves it. Make the people who want old stuff to reappear submit their request to the government - the institution who thinks this policy is a good or even workable idea.
70. Re:Well, duh... by tlambert · 2014-07-04 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  In Europe we aim to rehabilitate people who made mistakes. People who make financial mistakes, broke the law or just generally did something stupid in public are given the opportunity to move past those mistakes and have them forgotten. The law enforces that to a reasonable degree - it can't erase old newspaper articles, but it does allow a person not to mention certain criminal convictions or hide historic bankruptcies from the bank after a period of time.
  Actually, you are erasing the index to the old newspapers, which is tantamount to erasing the old newspaper articles.
  
  I understand it is different in the US. Criminals in particular are branded for life, no matter what their crime or what kind of life they live after being punished. We don't do that here, and consider it in the public interest to give people these opportunities so that they can be productive members of society again.
  I'm glad to see that Europe has achieves a 0% recidivism rate, and look forward to the speedy rehabilitation ad release of SS-Obersturmführer Søren Kam, among others.
71. Re:Well, duh... by Solandri · 2014-07-04 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ideally we'd like a "right to be forgotten" that means when I ask Facebook to delete my account, then by delete I mean "not a single bit of my accounts data remains".
  Even that is problematic. Presumably Facebook keeps backups. And for a backup to be a true backup, it has to be offline and off-site. So when you submit an account deletion request, they can't just scrub your data from their servers. They have to bring those backups back on-site and online, and scrub your data from them as well.
  
  A better solution is to mandate a maximum period to private data retention policies, e.g. 1 year. Then you can submit your deletion request, Facebook scrubs your data from their servers immediately. But by law they're allowed to keep the offline backup for up to a year, at which point they're required to scrub it. When it's a year old, it's not any good as a backup anymore, so they can just delete the whole thing instead of having to find your specific data within it.
  
  Yeah you probably want all the backups scrubbed immediately. But the whole point of living in society is that everyone makes compromises to arrive at a solution which works better for everyone overall. You don't get your data entirely scrubbed immediately. Facebook doesn't get to keep that data forever.
72. Re:Well, duh... by HiThere · 2014-07-04 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Can you define "public figure" in such a way that a program will understand it and a court will be guaranteed to agree with the program? If not, then expect Google to remove from European display LOTS of public figures.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
73. Re:Well, duh... by HiThere · 2014-07-04 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Was it a stupid ruling, or an inappropriate law? There *IS* a distinction. Perhaps the court decision was accurately upholding the law. Perhaps not. I don't know. I do know that the predictable repercussions are merely starting.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
74. Re:Well, duh... by fredprado · 2014-07-04 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  It does not need to be a Human Right. Even because the Human Rights Chart makes all countries in the world offenders if taken seriously. What I mean is that as long something is defined as an individual right by any legal chart applicable, it should be absolute as long as the law exists, not dependent upon the whim of the majority, a bureaucracy or whatever.
75. Re:Well, duh... by HiThere · 2014-07-04 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Just use bablefish.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
76. Re:Well, duh... by KramberryKoncerto · 2014-07-04 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Practically and theoretically, a lot of these rights come with a few "buts" and trade-offs. Due process forces you to give up a couple of rights under certain circumstances. Property rights are "rights", but virtually all governments have the power to claim land "owned" by anyone, most with policies that mandate compensation. Copyright enforcement excludes "fair use", which is related to public interest and the common good. Free speech is a "right", but there are also widely-accepted libel laws. Many other rights are subject to conditions (being in a certain society, accepted some kind of responsibility), even at the philosophical level, especially those classified as non-natural rights. Even with your definition of "rights", note that the "right to be forgotten" is not a universally accepted concept; the "right" part is just a name arbitrarily given to this legal notion, and this very naming is subject to debate, so is the extent of matters that are covered by this "right". Just because somebody else calls it a right doesn't mean you have to defend it unconditionally. Diminishing this "right" doesn't give you a slippery slope to mess with other rights.
77. Re:Well, duh... by fredprado · 2014-07-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  And most of the buts and trade-offs, if not all, are arguably unnecessary and exist solely to give control to bureaucracies over individuals. Other are not in opposition to the rights themselves. Libel laws, for example are not necessarily an exception to free speech, unless they demand the take over of the offending information. Civil consequences for the damage you make by lying are in perfect harmony with total and unrestricted free speech.
  
  Rights as long as they are included in the law should be as unconditional as possible, always, and the difficulty of doing that is just another motive why rights should never exist in the law. The law should be negative only and anything it doesn't deny should be an inviolable individual right.
78. Re:Well, duh... by Psyborgue · 2014-07-04 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Even requesting that of incorrect data is unreasonable. Who is to determine truth? Only the courts can do that.
79. Re:Well, duh... by swillden · 2014-07-04 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  I have to correct you here. What Goggle actually sells is you and your information so that personalized ads can be targeted directly to you.
  My description was more accurate.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
80. Re: Well, duh... by Trepidity · 2014-07-04 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The EU's position is that digging up some information and pointing to it constitutes an action that comes with responsibility. If you dig up some old government records on people and report information that has some plausible public interest, that's legal. If you dig up some old government records about your obscure neighbor, and stick them online just to embarrass him, that's considered a violation of privacy (under EU law). The view of the court is that Google doing this algorithmically doesn't relieve them of responsibility: when they dig up old information and point to it, they need to make judgments on whether it's in the public interest to do so.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
81. Re:Well, duh... by Stuntmonkey · 2014-07-04 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps the EU should start their own Ministry to censor
  China at least has the common sense to do it that way.
82. Re:Well, duh... by Karmashock · 2014-07-04 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  While I get the distinction, any legal system that is so simplistic that it allows such things to run unchecked is unworthy of being called a justice system.
  This is nothing new however... the EU has long been criticized for being heavy on the assumption of power and very light on the inherent restraints and limits of that power.
  Ultimately, it is this grasping nature of the EU that will probably doom it. We're already seeing many core member nations start rebel in various ways or simply start pushing hard for outright leaving the coalition.
  The EU cannot survive if its core members leave and it can't stop them from leaving unless it shows more wisdom then it has shown thus far... and it won't do that because the constituent politicians that run it are demonstrably not that wise.
  
  --
  I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
83. Re:Well, duh... by martin-boundary · 2014-07-04 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  Except what you're talking about is not so much helping you remember events, but rather helping you discover old events you didn't know about.
  Think of it like this: lots of people today weren't born when the Watergate scandal happened, and lots of people don't even know who Richard Nixon was. But they can google him, and in this case Google isn't operating as a memory assistance device, but rather as a teaching device.
  The problem is that whereas Watergate is a well known historical fact of some importance, most of the other facts that people discover using Google are hearsay, rumours, and opinion. The quality of information on the internet as a whole is worse than on Wikipedia. At least on Wikipedia the articles can be edited. Google's index should similarly be editable, I think that would raise its value to the level of Wikipedia hopefully.
84. Re:Well, duh... by martin-boundary · 2014-07-04 18:16 · Score: 1
  
  But this isn't what this law is about. At least, that's not what I understand it to be about. For this given example, there should be a very specific law designed to handle it properly. This is more about forgetting things that you did (and somebody wrote on the internet), and not cases where you are a victim of a crime. At least, that's what I understand it to be for.
  
  As I understand it, the law has been around for 20 years. It's about letting people, whose data is being collected by a company, demand to see what said company is recording about them, demand to correct data that isn't factual, and demand to be erased from said company's records if the person has (or no longer has) no business relationship with the company.
85. Re:Well, duh... by Carewolf · 2014-07-04 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  The court ruling only required them to remove a link to ONE article. Everything beyond that is Google acting on its own not bound by any court rulings.
86. Re:Well, duh... by airwan · 2014-07-05 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Chances are Joe Schmoe did post something like "Death to capitalist pigs and the corporate management culture" in the comment section, using his real name and not a nick. Joe Schmoe is actually looking for a job and whenever his possible future employer googles him, he finds out that Joe Schmoe might not be a good match after all. Joe Schmoe, once a campus arnachist, now has a mortgage and a 2 yo to care about, works in the banking industry to make a living, and may very well have switched views in the last 7 years.
  I guess I can understand why one wants to remove such information from google searches about himself. The EU Court of Justice has said such request should be refused if public interest weights in. It may not be in the public interest to photoshop searches about Merill Lynch former CEO Stan O'Neal, but I guess the same public interest remains relatively unscathed when photoshopping Joe Schmoe search results.
87. Re:Well, duh... by khallow · 2014-07-05 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Until Google does something that gets it bound by another court ruling.
88. Re:Well, duh... by Agent0013 · 2014-07-07 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not mentioning bad labour conditions at the factory where your product is made is quite a bit different from having all links to articles about the bad labour conditions at the factory removed from search results.
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
So... by aaaaaaargh! · 2014-07-03 21:32 · Score: 2

The important question for me personally is this: As someone living in Europe, how can I ensure that I see the US search results? Does switching to google.com suffice? Or do I have to use a proxy or VPN?
1. Re:So... by Andtalath · 2014-07-03 21:42 · Score: 2
  
  Google.com redirects you to the appropriate country.
2. Re:So... by gweihir · 2014-07-03 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  Use TOR and select an US exit-relay. Very simple to do, for example with the TOR-browser bundle. Start, select "verify TOR", select Altlas, select new identity, if the exit-relay is not in the US. Repeat until US exit relay is obtained.
  But be aware that using TOR puts you into the NSA's "extremist" database...
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 21:57 · Score: 1
  
  Use google.com/ncr, this will not redirect you but use the proper(us) site.
4. Re:So... by PhilHibbs · 2014-07-03 22:40 · Score: 2
  
  Try www.google.com/ncr
5. Re:So... by Rashdot · 2014-07-03 22:56 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, it would be interesting to know who has been using this ruling to get pages removed from searches. Because I'd rather NOT hire them.
  Is there a search method that would reveal them?
  
  --
  This is not the sig you're looking for.
6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 23:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Wrong, at least at the moment. You can turn off the google national redirect by simply appending "/ncr" to the url, i.e. http://www.google.com/ncr will take you to the USA site even if you are in Europe. However whether Google is forced to take that option away given some of these stupid EU and national court rulings is another matter.
7. Re:So... by Andrewkov · 2014-07-04 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  With no "right to be forgotten".
8. Re:So... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-04 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well then, that wouldn't work in non-English countries. The phrase would be translated to something that doesn't abbreviate to "ncr".
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
9. Re:So... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-04 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  So, you are agreeing that using "www.google.com" would not work for Europeans looking to avoid this censorship, because "www.google.com" would automatically redirect to their location. I am assuming you realize that "www.google.com" is not the same as "www.google.com/ncr", but I could be mistaken.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
10. Re:So... by Your.Master · 2014-07-04 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  It would not be sufficient, but the GP was not wrong in calling the GGP wrong, because the GGP said "it may indeed be neceesary to use a proxy or VPN".
Not the whole story- it goes deeper by lostandthedamned · 2014-07-03 21:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apparently Robert Peston did some digging and it wasn't searching for the Article that was being removed but searching for one of the comments. Right to be forgotten is all well and good, but using that to try and remove a post you yourself put in a public place is a bit barmy. Props to the first person who changes their name to Anonymous Coward then makes the request for all their posts to be unsearchable.
1. Re:Not the whole story- it goes deeper by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-03 23:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I had an issue with a comment I wrote on the BBC site years ago. Due to the way the page was laid out when you googled my name the snippet they displayed from the BBC site had some other person's vaguely racist and childishly simplistic comment next to my name. I contacted Google and they said contact the BBC. I contacted the BBC and didn't get a response, but about six months later the page was taken down. I didn't really want a complete take-down, just a fix for their layout.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
My two cents... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-03 21:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing. Don't we have an expectation to know where things are when searching? The search engine should be neutral is discovering the information.
The existence of a site doesn't necessarily mean something is negative. Facts are facts. If it's copyright infringement, defamation, libel, whatever, then it's the site that should be dealt with, not someone pointing to it.
To me, the E.U. isn't making progress. (I'm an American in the U.S.A.)
How does the existence of facts make a person any less qualified to do a job, if said facts aren't relevant? Employers, lenders, whatever, shouldn't be allowed to take factor in certain things when it comes to hiring people. It should be illegal. Kind of like how when asking about criminal activity, here in the U.S., I don't think they can count convictions over 10 years old. Why not do that sort of thing for stuff over there? Wasn't this whole thing originally about some guy and his tax foreclosure on his house or something like that?
1. Re:My two cents... by bickerdyke · 2014-07-03 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
  Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
  That's what has been tried first. But as a newspaper archive, the source is protected from removal. Then that guy decided to to so big time trolling and shoot the messenger (sue Google) instead.
  
  Don't we have an expectation to know where things are when searching? The search engine should be neutral is discovering the information.
  One of the biggest misconceptions ever. Altavista was neutral, going only by comparing the search keywords to the keywords on the websites. It got spammed and SEOed into oblivion. Google finally sent them into oblivion by showing search results that DID NOT try to be neutral, but tried to guess what the user was actually looking for. And they keep their position by filtering and reordering the results by so many factors, that it would be hard pressed calling it "neutral"
  Like page loading speed. Is it "neutral" that slow sites take a penalty? Rank is definitly not connected to the actual content of the page here.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
2. Re:My two cents... by drinkypoo · 2014-07-03 22:38 · Score: 1
  
  Google finally sent them into oblivion by showing search results that DID NOT try to be neutral, but tried to guess what the user was actually looking for.
  But that is neutral. What the user is looking for, neither this other thing nor that other thing. What Altavista actually did was show unprocessed results. When speed of search engines was a differentiating factor, that approach paid off. Then they advanced in performance and it didn't.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:My two cents... by PhilHibbs · 2014-07-03 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
  So I should be able to request that searches for "microsoft" should not go to "microsoft.com"? And Google should be forced to honour that?
  
  Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
  The reason that going via the search engine works, is that it is possible. Many content platforms don't have easy mechanisms for identifying and removing content, and many are hosted abroad (whereas Google is active in the EU and can therefore be instructed by EU authorities). Slashdot, for instance, has only ever removed comment content once to my knowledge and they made a huge deal over it. Search engines, however, have enough layers of indirection between the search box and the results that adding a rule to exclude certain results from certain keywords isn't all that difficult.
  I don't think that the "right to be forgotten" is a good idea. But saying "Instead of doing it via a route that is possible, they should do it via a route that is impossible" isn't a helpful contribution. Just say it's a bad idea, rather than suggesting an impossible course of action.
4. Re:My two cents... by HappyPsycho · 2014-07-04 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  If a a Google robot defames somebody
  I'm not following you here, how is the robot defaming anyone? It did not write the article on said person.
  I also don't agree this has anything to do with automation, if say wikipedia had a page that listed the CEOs of Merrill Lynch (and say included their most notable achievements / scandals) and this guy invoked his right to be forgotten there would be a gaping hole in that list (they didn't have a CEO from year X to Y?). If they put down something else and someone came across the scandal would anyone care that the right to be forgoten was invoked or would they just say that wikipedia is inaccurate?
  I'd object to it even more than with automation because someone spent quite a bit of time researching and fact checking that data which is now wasted.
5. Re:My two cents... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-04 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Does every other company get 1000 requests a day?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
6. Re:My two cents... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-04 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Real example of this did happen a few years ago. One of the popular Linux distros had a major fight on the Wikipedia page, that is still probably going on. The guy who started the distro saw a news piece about Israel attacking Gaza (in retaliation of Gaza attacking Israel, which was in retaliation ...), and put out a notice that he didn't want anyone who supported Israel to use his Linux distro. Soon after, he recanted that statement, and apologized for letting personal issues cloud his professional judgement.
  So, does the Wikipedia article about that Linux distro have the obligation to mention that incident that is years old, only existed for a short time, and has no impact on the distro itself? The main reason for mentioning it was that the fight was not about support of Israel or Gaza, but about limiting who can use open source software, based on political/ethnic/religious matters.
  Looking at the wikipedia page just now, the incident is now forgotten. But it is still available if you look through Google, with the right search phrase.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
7. Re:My two cents... by pjt33 · 2014-07-04 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not, but they don't make $50 billion annually either.
Precedent by GoddersUK · 2014-07-03 21:46 · Score: 1

Well the court judgement was not a good judgement; it set a precedent without any guidance about how to apply it to other cases. It also wasn't a good judgement because it creates a right to alter history, but that's another thing... Also Google have received tens of thousands of requests, can they really be expected to give each one a thorough legal analysis? Of course not, they'll just play it safe. So it may be an error of judgement by Google, but that's only because the court made an error of judgement.
A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-03 21:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Whilst it's a good idea for most people to be able to hide some embarrassing stuff about them, sadly it can be used to hide information that should be public. For example I know of someone who owes me a considerable amount of money, and several others. He deliberately ran up the debt with no intention of paying. Whilst trying to find information about him the other day Google showed that it has hidden a results because of the right to be forgotten. I know that he's done this so he can get out there and con more people with less chance of being found.
1. Re:A good idea, but... by gbjbaanb · 2014-07-03 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  The ruling only refers to information that is no longer "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant" - so if its still relevant it should not be unlinked.
  Maybe you should write to Google to inform them of this and to get the link re-instated.
2. Re:A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-03 22:33 · Score: 1
  
  Try googling: "will brooker" scam
3. Re:A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-03 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's interesting, it's certainly relevant to anyone looking to work with him, however it's difficult to know what has been blocked without being able to see it in the first place
4. Re:A good idea, but... by drinkypoo · 2014-07-03 22:37 · Score: 2
  
  Whilst it's a good idea for most people to be able to hide some embarrassing stuff about them,
  [citation needed]
  People already have too little motivation to do the right thing. Their misdeeds must be recorded for posterity. As well, too many people take stupid shit too seriously. The fact that it's just stupid shit must also be recorded for posterity, so that we can get over the stupid shit.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-03 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but I can easily see situations where people do stupid stuff like getting drunk and making fools of themselves, but not causing harm to others. These are the sort of situations where I feel it's reasonable to censor their own search results. But where someone's actions have impacted on other people, especially where they've caused harm they should not be allowed to remove them.
6. Re:A good idea, but... by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-03 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying you never made a mistake in your life that you find embarrassing now? As cameras become ubiquitous and social networks generate vast amounts of data about people it becomes more and more likely that the one time you got drunk and did something daft will be recorded for posterity and screw up the remainder of your otherwise good life.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
7. Re:A good idea, but... by gbjbaanb · 2014-07-03 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  and today Google has reinstated some links
  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech...
  
  "We are learning as we go," Peter Barron, head of communications for Google in Europe, told the BBC.
  Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, he dismissed claims made on Thursday that the company was simply letting all requests through in an attempt to show its disapproval at the ruling.
  uh-huh.
8. Re:A good idea, but... by Ardyvee · 2014-07-04 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  A long time ago I made the decision to live with my actions online. I say this as somebody who grew up being told to never publish anything that might ID me online. As such, I've tried my very best to: not publish something I don't want to remain on record for eternity; and if I do write something I later find... regrettable, not ask for it's deletion or it's inclusion. If somebody finds it, I hope they are capable of understanding that people change. If they aren't, I'm okay with not interacting with them (or I'll deal with it).
  I can understand, however, that people do not share my stance. For them, there should be a process where the information is hidden (there needs to always be a backup, in case a later ruling/decision says there was a mistake) only if there is a good reason to do so (or, in the case of dumb things while drunk, there can't be a good reason to keep it).
  Also, newspapers and other news sources should be exempt of it as long as they contain verified, true facts and only facts. As far as we know, we don't strike from history books what we don't agree with or find no longer relevant (okay, maybe we do show what we want, but that's wrong and it shouldn't be like that).
  
  --
  I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
9. Re:A good idea, but... by wisnoskij · 2014-07-04 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Canada here. Google does not appear to be listing any hidden results, but I am also not getting any results that appear relevant on the first page. But google is very location dependant, it probably only used to return that result for people (on the first page) in the general area of that specific will brooker and his scams. I would probably have to type in the town, province, or country name to get the result.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
10. Re:A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-04 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for checking, part of the problem of course is that I cannot see what has been removed to be able to tell whether or not it should have been removed!
11. Re:A good idea, but... by colfer · 2014-07-04 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  No results found for "will brooker" +scam.
12. Re:A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-04 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  if you search just "will brooker", in quotes, it also says some results have been omitted, so it may be the scam keyword is not a crucial factor and that search is actually just returning results for "will brooker" rather than '"will brooker" scam'
13. Re:A good idea, but... by drinkypoo · 2014-07-04 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying you never made a mistake in your life that you find embarrassing now?
  I'm saying that we need both a sense of perspective about embarrassment (and that complacency is bred from familiarity) and about appropriate behavior in public, in which case respect will come from familiarity. Right now, some people are wildly inappropriate in one direction, or even both; some people need to learn to mind their own business, some people need to learn to keep their business more private, and some people need to work on the log in their own eye, et cetera. Hiding the facts only obfuscates the issue, and retards people from finding out which group they belong to.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:A good idea, but... by bigalzzz · 2014-07-04 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  You're right the university professor isn't the right guy, and good spot on the British English! Try adding salisbury or wiltshire to that search. But to be honest you will still get a lot of results, even using terms like -film -university etc I still have loads of results that have not been delisted by google, the chances of us working out which ones have changed is pretty remote. I think we can let that go given the time that has passed! Just don't waste any more tea please...
15. Re:A good idea, but... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-04 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  I just checked, and even added "england" to the search. All I am seeing is articles about a professor that watches a lot of scifi and superhero movies.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
16. Re:A good idea, but... by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-07-04 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  People already have too little motivation to do the right thing. Their misdeeds must be recorded for posterity. As well, too many people take stupid shit too seriously. The fact that it's just stupid shit must also be recorded for posterity, so that we can get over the stupid shit.
  What about when the "truth" is incredibly misleading? What if there were actually no "misdeeds," but there is an implication that there were?
  Also, many of the cases so far seem to be dealing with media reporting. Do we really believe that the media always gets it 100% correct -- and, more importantly, that they care about giving enough context that a reasonable reader would draw the correct conclusions?
  For a really common example, what about people who are arrested, but no charges are ever filed (perhaps it was just an overzealous policeman)? Or people who have charges filed but are ultimately dropped because of lack of evidence or the realization that the person didn't commit the crime? Or people who go to trial, but are acquitted? Or people who are even convicted, but only for some small number of charges compared to the original case?
  The news media, in almost all cases, tends to be more vigilant about reporting potential evil-doing, than it is about correcting or following up on previous stories when people are just released, charges dropped, etc. You're much more common to see a long story about how a person was arrested and charged with some crime (child abuse, child molestation, rape, whatever...), but the story of charges dropped or an acquittal may be buried on page 10 or not even reported at all.
  Even though an original story about an arrest inevitably contains "alleged" and thus is technically not false, it can be incredibly misleading to someone who happens upon it in a web search.
  Now, you can argue that this is the fault of readers -- that we should presume innocence or whatever. I agree. But in the REAL WORLD, most people don't presume innocence when they read a story about someone arrested for rape or child abuse or something. Before the internet, the person would be acquitted or charges might even be dropped, and the only easy way to know about it is if you actually remembered the original reporting -- otherwise, you'd have to go digging through some library microfilm of old newspapers or something.
  But now, it's fairly common to be able to find old and incredibly misleading media articles in a normal internet search, particularly for someone with an unusual name and without any other significant online presence.
  This is an extreme case of someone potentially accused of something heinous but cleared of charges (which may never have been reported in the media), but what about the many other little issues with media reporting... slight exaggerations or things thought true at the time, or whatever, all of which could give an inaccurate impression of someone's reputation?
  It's not just recording stupid stuff that people did -- it's all the records of stuff people DIDN'T do (but it may be implied that they did) that are the bigger concern, to my mind.
17. Re:A good idea, but... by phorm · 2014-07-04 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Ditto for Canada. I see stuff about this prof, and some stuff about "binary options" and insurance scams.
  I'm guessing that it may have less to do with "right to be forgotten" and more that both "will" is a common word, and "broker scam" is close enough that it's getting that instead of "brooker"
  Even when I say to only use "Will Brooker" it doesn't come up with this fellow though. Perhaps wherever you've posted such info just isn't somewhere that places high on Goog's search results.
how are they hiding the names? by mlush · 2014-07-03 22:16 · Score: 2

I've been doing a bit of digging on the page, apparently the takedown was because of one of the comments so I did google searches for the page and each commentors name and they all came up ... though the searches were very slow and occasionally died with a 500 error.
wait ... by cascadingstylesheet · 2014-07-03 23:34 · Score: 1

... I thought this law was so forward-looking and enlightened and European (but I repeat myself) and all. But now it's a censorship tragedy instead?
It's so hard to keep up with what I'm supposed to think these days ...
Re:Malicious Compliance by tomhath · 2014-07-03 23:50 · Score: 1

Perhaps Google should ask for clarification from the European Commission on a few thousand requests, every day. Do you really thing Google can make those decisions on their own?
Justin Deed by smittyoneeach · 2014-07-03 23:59 · Score: 3, Funny

Justin Deed was a Streisand fan,
Doo dah, doo dah,
Saw her Effect and had a plan,
Oh da doo dah day,
Scrapin' screens all day
Scrapin' screens all night
Tried purge the whole Internet
'Cause he won't too bright.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Right to be forgotten... by Vapula · 2014-07-04 00:08 · Score: 1

First, I'd point that for many quite common names, you may find several people with same Name+Surname in Europe... sometimes hundred of people sharing the same name. So, what if John Doe A ask to remove some fact about John Doe B ? That's clearly impossible to google to judge about it.
I think that a quick "fix" to the problem would be Right to be cast in oblivion... Google just has to keep (in addition to removal of a specific link) a list of the people who asked to have their name removed and simply refuse any search with these names (no result, people cast into oblivion) with a big message "John Doe asked that links about him were removed from search results".
This would someone backfire to people asking such removal... You want to get a job ? recruiter try to look you up in Google and find that you asked to be removed from search results... and get told about it... that open any awful reason (sex offender ? serious misbehaviour ? other ?) and is likely to rule you out. You're a politician ? no publicity about you (except that "asked to be removed") is clearly worse that one or two old pages on the web about you... and so on...
And, somehow, google is complying : people want info about them removed... and that info is removed... And people get to know about who asked it (to be sure that's it's not an arbitraty removal).
IMHO, list of people who asked some removal SHOULD be public...
What next? by Chrisq · 2014-07-04 00:15 · Score: 1

Muslims want all reference to the twin towers bombing and the london underground bombing removed. Sure it's irrelevant! Translations of the Qur'an - sure it might give people the idea that Islam isn't all peaceful
Okay, I'm European and... by Arancaytar · 2014-07-04 00:18 · Score: 1

I officially no longer understand how the hell our government works.

He said the ruling should not allow people to "Photoshop their lives"
Isn't that exactly, to the letter, what the ruling does?
1. Re:Okay, I'm European and... by steg0 · 2014-07-04 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  I understood it that way from day one, and couldn't believe my ears as everyone around me kept extolling what great achievement in privacy they thought it was. Really, have they all forgotten to what extent people have been busy doctoring around with their Wikipedia articles basically since the existence of the platform (or have had their secretary do so)? Does a Wikipedia article turn you into a person of public interest? And when is a piece of information "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing" as stated in the ruling? All of this is just not going to work. Thank God we can still use US sites.
  Even the original case with the guy objecting to an auction notice didn't convince me at all, I mean come on, you screwed up (rather mildly in this case, I might add), so deal with it.
Circumvent & Discourage by MultiPak · 2014-07-04 00:18 · Score: 1

Howto: 1. As a paying google customer, can google include the storage of all history as a part of the service for a paying customer. 2. www.google.com / non-EU - will show EU hidden. 3. To discourage, www.google.com/RightToBeForgotten web page so you can see those with lots to hide, in effect raising their profile.
Re:Malicious Compliance by HappyPsycho · 2014-07-04 00:34 · Score: 1

What legal argument do you have against google in this case?
Google is not the one abusing the EU law here, the tons of takedown submitters are.
I take issue with the spokesman's comment "not a good judgement", last I checked Google is not in the business of making judgements (and I'm happy they aren't), that is the job of a Judge. Prior to the ruling that started this whole mess, if google got a court order for a link or group of links to be taken down based on whatever law it was taken down. The EU is effectively trying to push the cost of enforcing this law onto google.
blanket compliance or possible lawsuit? by Gravis+Zero · 2014-07-04 01:18 · Score: 1

seems to me that it's better to err on the side of safety by complying with all requests than have to deal with people in court because joe blow didn't like that you wouldn't remove his misdeeds. i mean, there are about 1000 requests a day and if you deny even 1% of people, you could end up in court in multiple countries in just one day.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Google no win? by fyngyrz · 2014-07-04 01:28 · Score: 1

Some of this would be solved by simply not indexing local news stories and police blotters. As these are generally of interest mostly to locals (surprise!), little loss of significant information access would occur. I already know where to go for my local information. I don't really benefit from the ability to find your local news and police blotter without an actual interest in your locality (and in which case, hunting down your local websites is trivial.) The ability to see everything from everywhere by searching for the essential equivalent to "search term: John Doe" is only something really of benefit to the gossipmonger's mentality. I really don't think you could ever convince me that such gossip is of much positive use to society.
Google wouldn't even have to do anything; all it would take is a legislated robots.txt entry, and bingo, local news and blotter gossip is gone.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Waity wait wait by paiute · 2014-07-04 02:18 · Score: 1

I said we wanted a slope. Nobody said it had to be slippery.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The EC rule was not a good judgement by BBird · 2014-07-04 02:29 · Score: 1

And these comments by the EC spokesman are unfortunate.
I sure hope Slashdot never adopts this by fustakrakich · 2014-07-04 02:37 · Score: 1

I don't ever want to see the ability to delete or edit comments once they are posted. Google is right on this, I certainly hope they carry on in this matter until the law is repealed or other indexers come online to get around it. Censorship is evil, always. It is invariably a tool of despots.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Judgement by DarkOx · 2014-07-04 03:35 · Score: 1

if people and companies always had "good judgement" there would be no need for laws and legal precedents in the first place. Laws are a fundamentally there to replace judgment, they provide a prescription of what one can or may do given a set of facts. They replace the use of ones judgement.
Maybe the EC should recognize that the problem lies with their law codes and their courts and not with Google.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Europeans should use DuckDuckGo! by anwyn · 2014-07-04 03:38 · Score: 1

It is an american Corporation with no assets in Europe! In the United States it is protected by the Speech Act! Europe can not corerce DuckDuckGo! It has a policy about not recording your searches!
The "right to be forgotten" by bmo · 2014-07-04 04:44 · Score: 2

Does not exist.
It didn't exist before the Internet, and it doesn't exist now. It's a complete fiction. I don't even know why we're discussing this as if it exists. It doesn't. I can't go back and tell people to forget things or destroy newspaper clippings about what I did any more than I can stop the tide from coming in.
--
BMO
1. Re:The "right to be forgotten" by Stuntmonkey · 2014-07-04 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  I agree it's a technically flawed concept.
  But in practical terms we have to recognize that information used to decay in a sense. In the old days of my youth, you couldn't make that newspaper clipping go away, but over time it would become buried and hard to find and access. (All of us over a certain age remember going through microfilm archives looking for articles. Even when you knew what you were looking for it was tedious.) So in a practical sense things mostly would be forgotten given enough time.
  None of that exists any more in the era of digital information. Content creators have no incentive to take down stale content; it costs nothing to serve and accrues ad revenue. So everything sticks around forever. We like the fact that our hard drives have (nearly) perfect memories, but there's also an ambivalence. It's hard to say what the right answer is.
2. Re:The "right to be forgotten" by bmo · 2014-07-05 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  But stale content /does/ get taken down. It's a concept called "bit rot" which not only describes bits on media physically rotting, but it's also "link rot" where a link goes to something that no longer exists. Link rot is such a problem that efforts are always being made to automagically check links through scripting to make sure they're "live" on a periodic basis.
  Well, smart people do that. Other people check manually.
  "B...but the Waback Machine" you say. The Wayback Machine doesn't archive everything, and unless you know the specific URL you're looking for, searching it can be a bear.
  There are many ways that content disappears from public view. In some ways it's /worse/ than what we had with microfilm, because the "microfilm" archives simply aren't there for this stuff.
  "The Right To Be Forgotten" is founded on three false beliefs:
  1. It's a right.
  2. It can be enforced
  3. It's necessary because data doesn't rot in a digital world.
  --
  BMOa
Re:Right to be forgotten... by Windwraith · 2014-07-04 06:38 · Score: 1

Hm, actually having someone with your own name do something heinous is pretty much a way to get disgraced without doing anything. I shouldn't have to respond for the crimes of John Doe B. Or imagine John Doe B is a known sex offender, or a pedophile. Scary.