Slashdot Mirror
Google Reinstating Some 'Forgotten' Links
An anonymous reader writes Only days after receiving harsh criticism from all corners of the internet for taking down links to news articles, Google has started to reinstate those links. Google's Peter Barron denied that they were simply granting all "right to be forgotten" requests. "The European Court of Justice [ECJ] ruling was not something that we welcomed, that we wanted — but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law," he said. Still, Google's actions are being called "tactical" for how quickly they were able to stir public dissent over the EU ruling. "It's convenient, then, that it's found a way to get the media to kick up the fuss for it: there are very few news organisations in the world who are happy to hear their output is being stifled. A few automated messages later, the story is back in the headlines – and Google is likely to be happy about that."
I totally forgot about this story until just now.
Did anyone honestly expect anything less? The "right to be forgotten" was bound to disproportionately hit news organizations by nature.
People see this law for what it is, a way for the rich/politicians/scum to get rid of stories that make them look like the twats they are.
Be seeing you...
say, in the US? If not, it's time to escalate this to the President, whose job is to defend American rights against all assaults, including the combined European Union.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
When I first heard about the "Right to be forgotten" I thought nice now how are they going to remove people's ability to remember ? More importantly just how many winston smiths will they need to turn things into un events because someone doesn't want to live with their actions ?
Aren't many of the news organizations in the EU the same ones that wanted to charge Google a licensee to link to their articles in the first place?
They're upset when Google links to their articles; they're upset when they don't ...
The Preston case was particularly pernicious - a whole article disappears from search results just because one person adds a comment to the article then decides to 'retract' their comment because 'it is not relevant any more'. It would have introduced a very easy attack route for anyone to take down any article they didn't like by posting a comment then asking Google to retract it thus hiding the whole article.
Korma: Good
Google really does occupy both an enviable and a pitiable niche as regards the war on censorship / copyright / privacy.
On the one hand, they constantly get orders to remove search results that the likes of DuckDuckGo never need to deal with.
On the other, when they actually do remove links, they almost uniquely have the power to make the asker instantly regret the request... Whether through the "Streisand" effect, or in the present case, by "innocently" applying the demand in an overly-broad manner, Google comes out smelling like roses while those who would silence them become the next internet pariahs-of-the-week.
Truly beautiful! And for a change (though I in no way mean to claim Google as any sort of White Knight), this effect works largely in favor of the public.
1) If you think Google leans to the right, you arent paying any attention to politics, their donations, or their policies. Like most tech sector companies, they lean to the left.
2) Theyre not doing it gleefully, theyre doing it to comply with the law in Europe-- which, I would note, is quite a bit to the left of the US.
3) Theyre also not complying as rapidly as the EU might want; theyre complying with the law, but requiring takedown requests to be specific and limited, and using a manual review process. Theres no automatic takedown, AFAIK.
Good rant though, aside from the gross factual inaccuracies.
1) If you think Google leans to the right, you arent paying any attention to politics, their donations, or their policies. Like most tech sector companies, they lean to the left.
I think in this case you need to ask "Of what?"
In the US, Google obviously leans to the left of the political spectrum. But the US spectrum is skewed heavily to the right, so that's not saying much.
In the EU, which includes true socialist countries, I'd say Google is a bit right of centre. However, I'm not sure of who Google has been donating to in the EU; the EU doesn't tend to take as kindly to political bribery as the US (not to say that they don't do it, but it's not usually so blatant).
Google's takedown request policy is...
1. Oops, we weren't expecting that... gotta unplug the service.
2. Okay, service is back but we're missing everything anybody asked be removed.
3. Oops, some of this stuff got removed right because there was something wrong in the request, we shouldn't have followed "all requests".
4. Now it works... and anybody who sues gets told "You should have gone to this URL to do that!"
This is why Slashdot is retractable by TeamTaco, but not by the submitter. When you post, it's on the record, but it can be pulled by somebody else if things are done right.
And republicans turned the stars upside down on their logo to appeal to Satanists.
How long until someone makes a website specifically to track what stuff who wanted forgotten? I, for one, would be interested to know if my potential employee thinks he can call take-backs on the internet.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I think "right to be forgotten" is in the face of my "right to recall what was said about you!"
that people find any kind of censorship acceptable. Savages, all of them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
In the EU, which includes true socialist countries,
Which EU are you talking about? Can you name one and add the definition by which that country is socialist?
bickerdyke