Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC Takes a Stand For the Public's Right To Remember Redacted Links

Posted by timothy on from the keep-the-microfiche-version-around-for-comparison dept.

Martin Spamer writes with word that the BBC is to publish a continually updated list of its articles removed from Google under the controversial 'right to be forgotten' notices." The BBC will begin - in the "next few weeks" - publishing the list of removed URLs it has been notified about by Google. [Editorial policy head David] Jordan said the BBC had so far been notified of 46 links to articles that had been removed. They included a link to a blog post by Economics Editor Robert Peston. The request was believed to have been made by a person who had left a comment underneath the article. An EU spokesman later said the removal was "not a good judgement" by Google.

113 comments

  1. Slashdot take down this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    immediately because I said so.

    1. Re:Slashdot take down this article by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Slashdot take down this article (Score 0)"

      You must wait until you have a -1 rating, otherwise you have had no damage to your feelings.

    2. Re: Slashdot take down this article by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I'm tall, blonde, have blue eyes, and both my parents emigrated from Germany. Does that count?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:Slashdot take down this article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But wait! Shouldn't we bow our heads and in a moment of silence, recall the OLD goatse.cx and the great redirect it made, in days before the domain was printed after a link.
      That IS what this article is REALLY all about. The poofy queens of England want to recall the warm inviting slippery pink cave, with the beef curtains held back like a doorman, inviting you for a taste or a ride. It was English zen. Could you reach up there and withdraw a banana? So on this occasion, we salute the mystery of goatse.cx. It couldn't have been done without all the rubes redirected there by the old grandmaster trolls. Lastly, we salute the BBC, without which; we would never know England as the land where a man is a man and any boy can grow up to be the Queen. Except in Wales where they take turns playing "mounting sheep".

  2. Court's judgement, not Google's. by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

    Court's judgement, not Google's.

    Quit offloading the responsibility for your censorship onto a third party. KTHXBAI.

    1. Re:Court's judgement, not Google's. by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      court? what fucking court? it doesn't work that way... unfortunately.

      so kthxbai go here https://support.google.com/leg...

      the law as it is is stupid.

      also it's about 50% that google removes, it's ENTIRELY up to google to decide... so it's googles judgement. it would be better imho if they just offloaded it all to /dev/null . like, you can make the request but they could just default everything to denied.. good for bbc to provide the list.

      and if you were wondering, yeah, you can request sites from bbc or whatever fucking site to be removed from search results. don't like something? post some info about you in the comments or make a stupid comment and then ask for the result to be removed! brilliant, eh?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Court's judgement, not Google's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The court is specified in the first sentence in the link you pointed to. Apparently you didn't read it. It does work that way. A court's judgement said that Google had to remove links when requested if they met some nebulous definition of out of date, inaccurate, etc. The court also made it the search engine (not just Google's) call because they didn't want to deal with it. So yes, the court told the search engines to be the ones to decide. Google told them that that would be stupid and that it would cause mistakes.

    3. Re:Court's judgement, not Google's. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that validate their point? The court ordered Google to be the one making the judgment call on every individual case of censorship. Stupid.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Court's judgement, not Google's. by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

      It validates their sub-point that Google makes the call, but it contradicts the main point which is that a court decided it should be this way, and therefore should get the blame.

      --
      Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
    5. Re:Court's judgement, not Google's. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      They'd be held in contempt of court if they rejected all the requests.

    6. Re:Court's judgement, not Google's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, it was Google's judgement because the articles Google opted to censor here clearly fell into the public interest category. I agree there are fringe cases where it's going to be hard for Google to judge, but these examples were not them.

      Google is really pissed at the fact that a court has ruled, that like every other company in the world, it has to adhere to the EU member state's data protection acts.

      It's spending a lot of capital spreading FUD against it as a result. This example being the censoring of news articles to create the self-fulfilling prophecy that it claimed it would result in censorship of public interest news articles when the only reason that's happened is that Google has opted to censor them, rather than because there's any law at all that said it had to.

      Another example of Google's FUD is the "public" panels it has been creating to get thoughts on "privacy" where Google has opted to control not just the panel, not just the questions asked and answered, but the audience too to try and pretend there's some great anti-privacy debate going on when it's actually just a whole Google orchestrated bunch of bullshit.

      I'm nearly always pro-Google, I've always been a fan of Android, I've always agreed the EU investigations over it's search business and the whole "not favouring competitors" thing is complete fucking nonsense, and I've always sided with Google in the patent wars, but on this issue? Google's underhandedness on the issue wreaks of the same sort of political meddling as Microsoft's subversion of the ISO standards process to get it's document format certified.

      So to make it clear again - there is no law in the EU that said that these articles had to be censored by Google - EU lawmakers themselves have been very clear that these articles would not fall foul of the law if they were not removed from search links. The only reason they have been censored therefore is wholly because Google has opted to the censor them, and therefore this is a firm case of Google choosing by itself to carry out censorship and then shifting the blame to try and force it's political goals of not having to give the slightest shit about privacy and data protection.

      Of course, it doesn't help that the summary here is incredibly biased. The summary gives the impression that the law is the problem, but the article is much more clear about the fact that Google's decision to carry out censorship unnecessarily is what the BBC is really taking a stand against.

      Google is often unfairly used as a punchbag because there's so many wealthy vested interests that are scared shitless of it and lobby the shit out of people to attack it from Microsoft, to News Corp, to Oracle, to Facebook and so on. But not this time, in this particular case, this is a clear example of Google actually doing evil.

  3. As expected from google by aepervius · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " "not a good judgement" by Google. "

    I expect nothing else from google, the notification to publication, the semi random removal and lack of judgement is exactly what I would do if I was google and wanted to protest against the law without showing my middle finger to the authority : simply do a very poor job out of it. In a way In understand it, I support the right to be forgotten out of many reason (before search engine we all enjoyed that right, and it is stupid that a small error without much consequence ruin your life. Big stuff like murder, rape, corruption, yes leave it in. But small fish ? Remove it don't be evil don't ruibn the life of people with small stuff which would have been forgotten if only a search engine did not exists). But the court should have been the one to decide case by case who should be removed and who should be not.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:As expected from google by markus_baertschi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes to the right to be forgotten. But do it right.

      Currently the search engines must remove the link to the article, but the article stays. This is bullshit. If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it. Also, there should be an open procedure, with appeals, to decide if the article must be redacted / deleted.

      Markus

    2. Re:As expected from google by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it is stupid that a small error without much consequence ruin your life

      That's not google's fault. It's not the fault of anyone publishing the information. And society won't unfuck itself in this regard while some people can hide their deeds, and some cannot, because they do not understand how the system works. All this will do is create further inequities in society.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But Markus the point is that Google doesn't own the article. They were simply providing an index link to it. That's why the whole EU Court ruling was so stupid. Google can't remove "the article", that's somebody else's writing on some other server. The only thing Google can remove is what's on their server, which is simply a pointer. Apparently the EU Court didn't understand this when they ordered Google to remove links to content. Fine. Link gone. Of course I can still find it with Bing, or any other search engine for that matter. If BBC puts search engine up on it's site to search BBC content internally, it will all be there, just a little harder to find.
      As for it being a "not good judgement" implementation, well the court didn't exactly give them much choice did they, and now everybody and their brother wants anything ever written about them that's in anyway negative to be hidden so it can't be found. And they threaten to sue Google if the link isn't gone by like yesterday. So Google is simply burning through the requests as fast as they can. They'll worry about the appeals when they can, but they have an order they must comply with first. Look they warned the courts this was a bad idea, they tried to explain what they do, and how the web works, but nobody listened because they were all just in it to punish the big bad American company, how dare they flout our European rules. and nobody cared what the reality is. From the article"The European Court of Justice (ECJ) said links that were "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" should not appear when a specific search - usually a person's name - was made." Do you really think that Google actually KNOWS the content of all the sites it's indexed? Of course not. They don't know what the content is, they simply download a page, search for additional links on the page and put them into a list then they index the page they're on by all keywords (anything that isn't or, an, the, a, and, etc.) then index the link under those keys. They have no idea what the actual page is about. No human is reading these things, its just words and links in a computer database. Once the page is indexed they follow all the hyperlinks they found and index those pages as well. Repeat ad infinitum.
      So when someone says "Hey there's irrelevant information about me that comes up on this link when you search my name. I want it pulled! The court told you to so you have to!" Google pulls the link. At least there nice enough to tell the link publisher about it so the publisher can appeal, but Google doesn't have time, or the relevant knowledge to decide what should or shouldn't be pulled. So they let the publishers appeal it if they want to. And by the way the court gave them bugger all guidance on how to interpret what is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" just stern warnings about what would happen if they didn't comply. So they pull link first and argue later, Got it yet? This isn't Google's fault.

    4. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, maybe the court should have been, but they didn't want the job. Look the stupid part about this is that the article or web site or whatever, that contains the information is still there. The info still exists. All that happened is you can't find it USING GOOGLE. Get the point. So use Bing, or some other search engine and... well look at that, there it is again. The EU Court ruling simply shot the messenger rather than blamed the message sender. AS for doing a poor job, well what did you expect. Look Google has no idea what is relevant, irrelevant, out of date (the criteria the court gave to Google) for the web pages it indexes. It's just an indexer, Nobody at Google is reading all these damn web sites, nobody at Google is going around and deciding what to add or not add. It's a completely automated process. The entire software engine was built to work one way and now people want it to work and do something it was NEVER designed to do. So yea the process is awkward and crude and the EU court doesn't care. They've found a scapegoat and they're gonna milk it for all its worth. Bad Google, naughty Google, publishing all this info about people. Bad, Bad, Bad. "But your honors we don't publish it, we only point to it.." "We don't care, make it go away!" Stupid nontechnical judicial...

    5. Re:As expected from google by AqD · · Score: 2

      and it is stupid that a small error without much consequence ruin your life.

      If it's indeed a small error, surely you'd still find acceptance from some people, if not forgiven by all. It's for others to decide, not you.

      What will EU do next? Wipe out memory of criminals from their victims?

    6. Re: As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you just butthurt that a "small error" (your small penis) has ruined your life?

    7. Re:As expected from google by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      > If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it.

      I disagree. A search engine creating links is new creation. New publishing. Banning the creation of news links is WAY different from altering a historic record. Where does it stop? Do you delete history books? You have read 1984, right? Deleting historic records is pretty damned close to changing it in the style of 1984's dystopian future.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    8. Re:As expected from google by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      Better, the article should only be hidden for certain search terms, like someones name, when that person is not otherwise remarkable.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    9. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why the whole EU Court ruling was so stupid.

      Either that, or you misunderstood the whole point of it.

    10. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will always be someone keeping archives of everything, you can't stop the signal.

      How about we all just grow up and take responsibility for our actions?

    11. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically its the same kind of censorship.
      removing negative information from google (what 90% of internet users use) or altering a "historic record" is how exactly diffrent?

      People searching for negative information wont get it either way. so its censorship!

    12. Re:As expected from google by Charliemopps · · Score: 0

      Yes to the right to be forgotten. But do it right.

      Currently the search engines must remove the link to the article, but the article stays. This is bullshit. If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it. Also, there should be an open procedure, with appeals, to decide if the article must be redacted / deleted.

      Markus

      and who the hell is going to pay for all that?

      The entire premise of this idea is ludicrous. You cannot erase the past. All that dumb shit you did when you were 22 was done and you have to live with it.

    13. Re:As expected from google by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      While I agree that this would be the best way to deal with it, you seem to forget what most politicians also conveniently ignore: Their laws don't mean jack in Generistan. Slander isn't really a crime in some countries. At least countries that have real problems instead of first world problems are usually a wee bit, let's say, sluggish when it comes to your request to take down some article you don't like.

      For a time I was busy trying to fight malware. Part of that fight included trying to take down command&control servers. You have NO idea how much trouble it can be to convince the executive in some far east countries to cooperate in something like shutting down such a C&C server. Even if said country does actually have laws against computer crime. Now take a wild guess how easy it may be to convince a provider in said country to do something against an article the content of which is possibly not even violating their local law (but is violating EU laws).

      The EU can only policy the territory it controls. Some countries may think they own the world and can enforce their laws anywhere, I'm kinda glad the EU doesn't follow that train of thought. And I am DAMN glad they try to control it that way instead of the "Chinese firewall" approach!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      no! do it the american way: act stupid and later sue eveyone!

    15. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't find the record, what's the point of it existing?

    16. Re:As expected from google by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2

      If you can't see the difference between banning new creation and altering the historic record, I don't know what to tell you.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    17. Re:As expected from google by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it was stupid.

      If the material shouldn't be available, then remove it.
      If it should be available, allow it to be found.

      Right now Google are in a no-win situation and the rest of us have artificial barriers in the way of what should be pretty simplistic research.

    18. Re:As expected from google by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Didn't give them much choice?

      dude, that's not how the right to forgotten works.

      GOOGLE HAS THE CHOICE. they reject about 50% of requests. it's not a court that makes the request, it's the who fuckingever individual that wants his stupid comment not to show up on google searches who makes the request.

      indeed, you can send a request, provided that you live in the affected countries, to google to remove your previous comment from showing up on google search.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    19. Re:As expected from google by Le+Marteau · · Score: 2

      This law does not ban indexing by libraries, by the legal system, and by a multitude of other means which have legitimate societal uses where there is a legitimate need for the information. The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.

      This guy I replied to, who proposing the source be deleted does not understand the scope of the law. He proposes deletion of material, when that would countervene the intention of the law which is to allow proper and needed accees to historical record, not just up and deleting history.

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
    20. Re:As expected from google by IIH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Currently the search engines must remove the link to the article, but the article stays. This is bullshit. If the article contains something to be forgotten it should be removed or redacted. This is the only correct way to do it. Also, there should be an open procedure, with appeals, to decide if the article must be redacted / deleted.

      One of the problems with this law is that it's badly named, which creates a lot of misunderstanding. For example, I do not believe search engines must remove the link to the article completely, just not return it for specific search queries. So it's not the article itself that is at fault, but the connection created by the search engine between the article and the search subject

      Basically, when you search Google (or any other search engine) for the name of a person, you are implicitly (or explicitly) asking "What are the most relevant things about this person?" If the answers to this query chosen by the search engine are out of date or irrelevant, then the search engine itself is at fault, as it is the one doing the judgment of "most relevant". When these inaccurate results/connections cause damage to a person, and the search engine won't change its practices, then it is only right that the court stepped in.

      Would there be as much of a backlash if this law was called "Requirement for search engines to stop returning inaccurate and harmful results about people?" Maybe not, there might still be people saying "But, the article is correct". But this misses the point that the inaccuracy is in the search-engine-generated and ranked connections between articles and people - not in the article itself.

      M.

      --
      Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
    21. Re:As expected from google by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Well, now Google can just point a link at the BBC's index of articles of with their links removed.

    22. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only thing Google can remove is what's on their server, which is simply a pointer. Apparently the EU Court didn't understand this when they ordered Google to remove links to content.

      No, you've misunderstood the goal. It isn't about deleting the information, it is about increasing the barrier to finding the information. The goal of the court is to turn the clock back, just a little tiny bit back, towards pre-internet status. It used to be that various records of our activities were spread around different "data silos" - newspaper articles were at the library, property records were at the tax assessor's office, arrest records at the court house, etc. You could still find the information but you had to care enough about it to do a little legwork. We had a sort of privacy by default - the information was public but not easily public.

      Rarely is anything in life black-and-white, all-or-nothing. The EU court ruling is about acknowleding that reality and trying to bring back the gradients of privacy. Complaining that about google delistings is kind of like complaining that you can't easily search facebook timelines from google or that google obeys what is in a robots.txt file.

      You'll note that the articles are not even delisted from google, it is only certain specific search terms that no longer pull up the articles. For example, in the economics article, if you search for any of the keywords in the article, it still comes up in google. But if you search for the name of the guy who wrote that one comment, then the article does not come up. That's all - they've just broken the direct link between one person's name and a public record about that person. The information is still there, you can still find it in other ways, it just takes a little more legwork so that there is a little more privacy.

    23. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The order applies to Bing and other search engines too; not just Google. Of course the users who ask for content to be removed from the index have to individually request it from each search engine. And, since the court pushed decision making powers off onto the search engines, one may remove the link and another may not.

    24. Re:As expected from google by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's not how data protection laws work in the EU. They apply to businesses that provide access to information about people, even if they didn't create the information themselves. The classic example is the credit reference agency, which merely catalogues credit information provided by third parties and publicly available information like bankruptcies. Even so, data protection laws require them to "forget" certain things, such as bankruptcies after a certain period of time.

      Data protection laws are very important in Europe. They are what allow criminals to rehabilitate. The prevent companies selling or allowing access to private health or financial data for their own benefit. It allows you to have incorrect information corrected, or get a complete record of the data they have relating to you.

      You are also factually incorrect about what Google is doing. They are not removing articles from their search results entirely. They are only removing those search results for a specific individual's name. Other search terms will still find those pages. Your approach, which I note seems to be the US approach, is to never forget or forgive any mistake or anything uttered by anyone in a public forum, for the rest of their lives. It's like the permanent record some schools keep, only a mistake made when young and blight your entire life and the only way to recover is to start a new identity. Europe doesn't do that.

      --
      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:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That's not google's fault. It's not the fault of anyone publishing the information.

      It's often the *direct* fault of the publisher.

    26. Re: As expected from google by russotto · · Score: 1

      I was talking about my writing tool, damn you. "My small pen is...". Fucking incompetent copyeditors.

    27. Re:As expected from google by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I didn't espouse data retention or destruction. I merely highlighted that the EU courts have demanded that Google engage in neither.

      That's just fucking stupid.

    28. Re:As expected from google by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      All this will do is create further inequities in society.

      Well, that is the idea, so it's only natural for laws like this to get passed. They are written by the people who need them most.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    29. Re:As expected from google by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      But small fish ? Remove it don't be evil don't ruibn the life of people with small stuff which would have been forgotten if only a search engine did not exists).

      No, you should condemn the people who make judgements based on stupid pictures and statements. They are the ones who act in bad faith and should be sanctioned. Google is a search engine. Let them search, and let the user filter the results, not the state, or even Google itself. I can only wish that Google holds fast (though I know they don't), and tells the censors to go to hell. We must kick them to the side of the road with whatever methods we have.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    30. Re:As expected from google by markus_baertschi · · Score: 1

      That is what I'm saying. Google can not remove the article, but is forced to remove a link (among many). For a useful right to be forgotten the concerned party should request for the article to be taken down or redacted.

      The judgement show the foolish stupidness and incompetence of the judges.

    31. Re:As expected from google by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      In the end we will just get private search engines which companies use to check out hires ... so the rich/frauds will be able to make their deeds invisible to the peons but the peons won't be able to hide their misspent youth from the rich/frauds.

    32. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google isn't going to pull down major domains like Yahoo.com over this, that's probably where your 50% number comes from, completely ridiculous requests that they already flagged.

    33. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, the European court knows that the link != the article.

      Doesn't matter. Not relevant to this law.

      The idea (of the law) is that when you search for someone's name, you shouldn't find links to certain articles. You can still find those articles in any number of other ways - it would be impossible to prevent that - but you can, on a case-by-case and search-engine-by-search-engine basis, prevent them from being indexed under someone's name.

      Bing? Bing complies with the same types of notices that Google does. Just that almost nobody bothers to ask them, because neither employers nor anyone else is much in the habit of "binging" people's names.

    34. Re:As expected from google by davydagger · · Score: 1

      google does not hold fast when presented by National Security Letters, and other bits of government and media company ordered censorship, you know, when it matters most, such as actual policy discussions on the line, not covering up personal dirty laundry so someone can go on living their life.

      Google is flying a huge double standard cooperating with the US authorities censorship of information for state and corporate, while snubbing european rules that protect common citizens.

    35. Re:As expected from google by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2

      Better, the article should only be hidden for certain search terms

      It is.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    36. Re:As expected from google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the material shouldn't be available, then remove it.
      If it should be available, allow it to be found.

      Fallacy of the excluded middle there. There's a third possiblitily that makes sense and you didn't take into account. According to Europe, the material should be available, but it should not the default information that appears when looking for the name of a person.

      Thus, making it harder to find removing a part of the index (not even the whole of it) makes sense and solves the problem, without requiring the original article to be censored. It's a middle ground compromise, thus it won't appeal to those who see the world in black and white moral rights.

    37. Re:As expected from google by lonecrow · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the recording industry rights holders in Europe can or have already used this to have links to pirated material removed from Google.

    38. Re:As expected from google by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Yes to the right to be forgotten.

      I wish memories had a right to be forgotten. Think of all the livers that would be saved.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    39. Re:As expected from google by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The law does not advocate removal of information, only how and when it is indexed and presented.

      Wow. That is a very interesting and barely existent distinction.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    40. Re:As expected from google by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      it is stupid that a small error without much consequence ruin your life.

      Come on. Tell us. What did you do?

      Seriously though. I'm not sure how you think life works, but small errors without consequence ruin lives all the time. "I only had three beers" or "I forgot to wear a rubber" are small errors.

      The only question I have about this law is how in the world could it NOT end up being abused? This law is designed to be abused.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. Incomplete information by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is they only know the URLs being removed, not the search terms associated with the removal. The removal only affects results for a search of the individual's name, and other searches will still show those articles. Without knowing who requested the removal (in the first case they were notified of it was someone who wrote a comment, not the subject of the article) the list isn't that helpful.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Incomplete information by Kjella · · Score: 2

      While there'll always be exceptions I imagine it's usually a very short list of persons who want any one article removed, blowing the whistle saying "someone is trying to bury this article" should have the intended effect anyway.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Incomplete information by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      Wrong. Already there have been cases where the main subject of a removed article was publicly accused of having it removed, only for it to turn out to be a commenter on the article that wanted their comment forgotten. Since the ruling only affects the search index and not the actual page, the whole article will have to be de-indexed just to forget one comment. There could be a lot of different commenters on one page.

    3. Re:Incomplete information by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The removal only affects results for a search of the individual's name, and other searches will still show those articles.

      Uh, wasn't this the whole point of it? I thought that this is exactly how it was supposed to work.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Incomplete information by Teun · · Score: 1

      You got it!

      As many others I understand the willingness of the EU court to enable people a shot at loosing a certified stupid remark that's lingering on the net.
      On the other hand we understand this is neigh impossible by 'just' editing the search results.
      I think the comments in the EU ruling give enough leeway to the search engines to not delete (the link to) a whole article just because there's one commenter with regrets.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:Incomplete information by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      the whole article will have to be de-indexed just to forget one comment.

      No, Google have stated and you can check for yourself that the removal only applies to the specific search term of the requesting party's name. In the case of the first article removed, which was about a banker, searched for his name still show the article in the results.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Article or link by benjymouse · · Score: 1, Informative

    Was the article removed in its entirety, or was the *association* between the name and the article removed.

    Of course Google should not remove the entire article. That was never what the law said. If they did so, it was just another blatant attempt at manipulating opinions of journalists in the hope that journalists reporting will start sway public opinion.

    If it was just the *link* between a commentator name and the article that was removed, i.e. you would still find the article through googling words from the content of the article, then what is BBSs problem?

    Google is blatantly trying to manipulate public opinion through journalists. They are deliberately misinterpreting the law to create an impression of draconian consequences.

    --
    Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    1. Re:Article or link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong, but I believe the link to the article is removed from all google search results.

    2. Re:Article or link by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google is blatantly trying to manipulate public opinion through journalists. They are deliberately misinterpreting the law to create an impression of draconian consequences.

      Could be, I suppose.

      Or this could just be a result of the massive number of requests they are dealing with. Earlier this month, they mentioned they had received about 150,000 requests in the past 5 months, dealing with roughly 500,000 links. That's roughly 1000 requests and 3500 links to evaluate PER DAY.

      Even if they have legal experts reviewing every case, there are bound to be a few questionable calls with such volume.

    3. Re:Article or link by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      The whole article is de-indexed. That is the only way it can work - the required form of complaint is that the information is inaccurate / irrelevant / etc., i.e. the complaint is that the information should be "forgotten", not that any particular search term should not lead to it.

    4. Re:Article or link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet, sounds good. Fight idiocy with sabotage.

    5. Re:Article or link by benjymouse · · Score: 1

      The whole article is de-indexed. That is the only way it can work

      What? Google already uses a huge directory of "stop words" - words or phrases that should not be indexed. What is required is that they can create such stop words per link (article). Maybe they are not done with that yet, but it could certainly work that way.

      The goal is not to suppress articles, the goal is to protect individuals right to privacy. Google does not control the article, and they should not remove all links (associations) to articles. But they can and should respect individuals right to privacy. So when an association is outdated, irrelevant or misleading they should - upon request - remove the association - not the article, not all the other links to the article.

      And yes - that includes the right to delete associations between your name and a possible crime you committed 30 years ago. Most modern judicial systems (US the notable exception) recognize that when you've done your time you have "paid" your debt to society - and should have a chance to start over. If youthful stupidities will follow you your entire live you will *never* get a chance to prove that you have corrected yourself.

      And this is NOT just for criminals. Controversies, your participation in demonstrations, debates, political parties, deliberate smear campaigns etc. all have the potential to seriously inhibit your chances with future employers.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    6. Re:Article or link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you are.

    7. Re:Article or link by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Most modern judicial systems (US the notable exception) recognize that when you've done your time you have "paid" your debt to society - and should have a chance to start over.

      Yeah, just because you did time for embezzling doesn't mean you should be denied a job as a CFO or Banker....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:Article or link by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, the request applies to searches for the individual's name, not the article. The page will remain in the index, it just won't appear when searching for the person's name. Any other names or search terms that would normally lead to it will continue to work as normal.

      The ruling is quite specific in this regard. The only intent is to prevent that information appearing when someone researches that individual by name.

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

      Google is blatantly trying to manipulate public opinion through journalists. They are deliberately misinterpreting the law to create an impression of draconian consequences.

      Who cares? It's a corrupt law. Public opinion was manipulated to get it passed. If they can lie, and it works, then so can we. So fuck the censors and all other authoritarians. Let's fight fire with fire, and do what we can to end this, whatever it takes. Google is doing right. If they have some kind of "nuclear weapon" to wipe out censorship by what ever means at hand (make it impossible to enforce), I sure hope they use it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Article or link by KevReedUK · · Score: 1

      The whole article is de-indexed. That is the only way it can work - the required form of complaint is that the information is inaccurate / irrelevant / etc., i.e. the complaint is that the information should be "forgotten", not that any particular search term should not lead to it.

      WRONG! The ruling is that such articles should not be returned as results when specified search terms are entered. This allows for the article to be returned in response to other search terms. Such an approach is largely in the public interest, as it means that should an article no longer be a relevant result for one person, but is still relevant for others, you can still find the article by searching for the any of the others. Take for example the following:

      An article is published stating that Mr A, Mrs A, Mr B and Mr C were all arrested in connection with crime X, committed against victim Miss D.
      Mr B subsequently has charges against him dropped when it became apparent that he was not involved.
      The media continue to report on the case as it proceeds through the courts without mentioning Mr B.
      There is no media report about the charges against Mr B being dropped.

      In your interpretation of the ruling (let's call this scenario 1), searching for Mr A, Mrs A, Mr C or Miss D won't bring up the article either, despite its relevance to them.

      If it is implemented according to the spirit of the ruling (and, based on my cursory and untrained reading of it, the letter of the ruling), a search for any keyword or name in the article EXCEPT for Mr B's name will bring it up, but a search for Mr B will not (we'll call this scenario 2).

      And why would Mr B necessarily care if someone searching for information on Mr A turns up this article. They aren't interested in him, so for it to turn up will have no impact on him one way or another. If someone was going to be researching Mr B (for a potential employment opportunity or whatever), why would they be entering search terms like Mr A, Mrs A, Mr C, Miss D or Crime X unless they already knew enough about him that they knew about the event (and therefore are likely to know that he wasn't mentioned in later reports, or may even know that the charges were dropped.). If they do know enough about Mr Bs past to know he was tangentially involved with (for example) Mrs A, a search on Mrs A will bring up both the article where Mr B is mentioned as being arrested, and the results for the rest of the case where Mr B is NOT mentioned, allowing the searcher to infer that the charges were dropped (and if they're not able to draw such inferences, are they really the sort of people you want to be working for).

      If the status quo prior to this ruling remained in place (scenario 3), you would have the situation that a search on Mr B would bring up the article linking him to the crime, but because there was no mention about the charges being dropped, additional searches would need to be made to bring up other articles pertaining to the case that omit his name, thereby providing an implication of sorts that the charges were dropped. Would most potential employers search on other terms in the article to see if the proceedings continued without Mr B's involvement?

      If you put yourself in the position of Mr A, Mrs A or Mr C, you are likely to prefer scenario 1. Mr B also benefits from this scenario, but what about Miss D (or the courts, police, media or society at large), who would want to ensure that no-one else become the victims of Mr A, Mrs A or Mr C? Mr B certainly won't be a big fan of scenario 3, as it is a pretty raw deal for him and him alone. In scenario 2, Mr B is afforded a proportionate degree of protection from the ill effects of the persistence of accurate, but no longer relevant, reporting, Mr A, Mrs A and Mr C remain easily linked to a report that remains both accurate and relevant with regard to them and Miss D gets the reassurance that, whilst she remains a victim, at least the chances of others falling victim to the same perpetr

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
  6. Censorship by frup · · Score: 2

    We have two options. One is to censor and hide information. The second is to learn to be more tolerant and just accept everybody makes mistakes and says stupid things at times. If you're religious, you can't hide stuff from your god. If you're not religious your only judgement is by others and perhaps you deserve it.

    With the internet what is unfair is how by and large people were fooled into thinking they were anonymous, I think allowing that belief and taking it away without peoples knowledge is a form of entrapment (or perhaps not educating the populace on the consequences of actions when they were always there). While anonymous people say things for reaction that they do not necessarily believe or mean. Perhaps that is a mark on their character. I was taught to believe that sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. This goes in two directions.

    We are each individuals who have our own path to forge. I pity those who try to control others. I pity those who act without thinking. Don't live in the past, the key is to move on and learn from your mistakes, better yet learn from others. That is wisdom. Hakuna matata.

    1. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With the internet what is unfair is how by and large people were fooled into thinking they were anonymous,"

      In many cases information is being published by third parties in newspapers. In the past to get at it you'd have to go to the library and look through microfiche to dig up dirt.

    2. Re:Censorship by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The problem is less that people think they're anonymous. The problem is more that it's usually not they themselves that post "incriminating" content but their peers, and with the internet this means it's here to stay.

      For reference, take Star Wars Kid and all the other involuntary internet celebrities.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The second is to learn to be more tolerant and just accept everybody makes mistakes and says stupid things at times.

      Good luck with that. Ever since Gary Hart was run out of the 1988 presidential campaign for fooling around with a woman who was not his wife, American politics have gone "full exposure" and 25 years later the result has even less tolerance of human foibles (e.g. Anthony Weiner who never even touched another woman).

      It is human nature to be holier-than-thou and judgmental of others. If you want to fight human nature, you are guaranteed to lose. It will be a long protracted battle with tons of casualities, but in the end you'll lose. Much like how that MAFIAA is fighting the losing battle against the human nature to share.

  7. Re:BBC = garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that you, Fox?

  8. "not a good judgement" by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An EU spokesman later said the removal was "not a good judgement" by Google.

    Clearly google should have a team of philosophers, ethicists, social activists, and legal theorists evaluate each of the 1000 requests per day to ensure that each link removed is a "good judgment."

    --
    When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
    1. Re:"not a good judgement" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how most (70/100) are not removed after (individual's) request, I'd say Teh G has such a group. Evil incarnate.

    2. Re:"not a good judgement" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They're already doing something like this with YouTube videos, aren't they? (I.e., have an army of people adding human judgement to the workflow of processing various requests.) I guess that's just a cost of doing business, like having an accountant.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:"not a good judgement" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An EU spokesman later said the removal was "not a good judgement" by Google.

      Clearly google should have a team of philosophers, ethicists, social activists, and legal theorists evaluate each of the 1000 requests per day to ensure that each link removed is a "good judgment."

      Google could have a team of 100 persons on this, handling 10 requests each, and it wouldn't even show as a rounding error on the result in a sub-department P&L. Google have around 55.000 employees and are insanely profitable. So Google could absolutely do this properly without problem, but that doesn't make the law/ruling any less stupid.

    4. Re:"not a good judgement" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YouTube DMCA takedowns are completely automated, there's no "people adding human judgement" to ANYWHERE in that process. That's why that (also) is broken beyond everything. There MIGHT be human judgement involved once you appeal the takedown. But the takedown itself if completely automated (and automatic! There's not even a tiny check to see if the takedown is legit in the first place. Or that the takedown requestee actually holds the rights to whatever he requests.)

    5. Re:"not a good judgement" by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The people who made this law should not be lecturing anybody about "good judgement", except maybe the voters who put them into office. Their judgement is indeed questionable.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:"not a good judgement" by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      If only the voters could choose who gets into office.
      Sure we get to elect a European parliament, but the European Commission is the body who issues the directives.
      And they are appointed by the European Council.
      And they are appointed by National governments.
      And the only power the parliament has in all that is to veto the president of the Commisssion.
      So what are the chances of my vote having enough clout to filter through to the Commission? Hell, if every country voted its government in unanimously, their impact on the commission would still be minimal.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  9. DO NOT CONFUSE FOX NEWS WITH . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    other (Stewie's) Rupert holdings like Fox (TV), (20th Cenury) Fox, WSJ, News of, uh, (Quick Brown) Fox, and Aunt Jemima.

  10. Willfully ignorant about the facts by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 1

    Google did not decide to remove anything.

    It was ordered by a court, a weary giant of flesh and steel, to remove from its index all articles that anyone wants removed.

    The articles themselves are not removed. That would be impossible. This is the internet.

    The articles in question can no longer be found with Google. They can still be found with Bing, Duck Duck Go, Baidu, or your own toy web-crawler. This is the internet.

    Is it poor judgement by Google to obey the law?

    Or is it poor judgement by the people to publish things they don't want to be public?
    Or to draw attention to the things they don't want you to know about?

  11. So... doxxing is good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... doxxing is good? I'm not going to get into details (as it's offtopic and will just spiral into nonsense) but recently there's been an online campaign that has been accused of "doxxing" its opponents. Doxxing is essentially using Google to locate hard-to-find information about an individual and correlate it into a single "dossier" about that person. Sometimes this includes finding information about that person that most people would consider "private" such as their real name and physical address, information that turns out to be out there but most people don't want broadcast.

    Most people consider doxxing "wrong" but it sounds like this is the BBC coming to the defence of doxxing by ensuring the information remains available.

    Personally, I'm ... you know what, I haven't a clue. Publishing things like someone's home address in order to scare them away from supporting something is clearly wrong. But then you have things like making it clear that a certain person has engaged in certain behaviors over the past. Usually this ends up being an ad hominem attack against them. Sometimes it turns out to be meaningful. I have no idea what the right answer is here. Ultimately, I guess if the information is out there, the public has a right to know.

    1. Re:So... doxxing is good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everything that can be done should be done, and not everything that should be done can be done.

      Everything that can be done will be done, given enough time and resources.

      The Universe is not fair by any human measure.

  12. The system did not work like that by aepervius · · Score: 1

    ALl of us born ebfore google remember it. Just because google come and suddenly nothing is forgotten, does not mean it is a good thing.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  13. The things is , individual abuse this by aepervius · · Score: 1

    "if it's indeed a small error, surely you'd still find acceptance from some people, if not forgiven by all. It's for others to decide, not you."

    Look, until google came in, it worked that way : if you had a small problem , then it was forgotten after a while because nobody except the locals knew about it. Let me tgive you an example : you are flagged as person of interrest by the police, they itnerrogate you, keep you in goal for 48h , it is reported by the journals. It turns out you had NOTHIGN to do with the crime and somebody else is arrested.

    How many HR despartment would simply stop at the first hit in google associated with your name ? Is that fair that you get punished for the rest of your life for this ?

    Let me give you another example. You are stupid and post a photo of you doings tupid stuff. You are after all a teenager, and not yet mature. Should this be taken against you for your whole life ?

    There is a lot of example like this, which has NEVER been a problem before search engine. Because it was forgotten after a while. But now anybody can look up google and find everything under your name. This is not a good thing, because we human tend to do snap judgement. So really, think about this "this is for other to decide" twice.

    And then the classic : you get drunk and do something stupid somebody get a photo. Pre-2000 a good memory to share between friend. Past 2000 google+facebook : a friend which unwittingly may cost you a good job.

    Furthermore freedom is at the side of the road, not in the middle of the road. Thiunk about the impact of the freedom of us all as more and more of our life , without our consent, gets in DB or published.

    And since when society has been known to be forgiving ? On the contrary society is quite harsh and unforgiving. Combine that with a memory which goes forvever and you got a NASTY piece of disaster, transforming a youth of generations which is a tiome of discovery and pushing the limit, in a trap which cost you a lot because of that google memory never stops.


    A society which does not forget would be a harsh society. I do not want that for my children or grand children. Do you ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:The things is , individual abuse this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so instead of asking the local newspaper to remove the article, as it has been proven that it was false, put a password on photos, so only the few who should, can access them, ... you want it hidden from google.

      So what exactly stops HR to use bing?

      This crap just opens a whole new branch of bussiness: data dealers of negative records on people.

      imho individuals acting stupid in no way outweights the problems censorship brings.

    2. Re:The things is , individual abuse this by AqD · · Score: 1

      And since when society has been known to be forgiving ? On the contrary society is quite harsh and unforgiving. Combine that with a memory which goes forvever and you got a NASTY piece of disaster, transforming a youth of generations which is a tiome of discovery and pushing the limit, in a trap which cost you a lot because of that google memory never stops.

      A society which does not forget would be a harsh society.

      All the more reasons the governments should try to fix everyone's stupid attitude, starting from themselves. Blinding people and hiding facts do not solve the root of problem - they only suppress it.

      I do not want that for my children or grand children. Do you ?

      I don't think we will have any future.

    3. Re:The things is , individual abuse this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many HR despartment would simply stop at the first hit in google associated with your name ? Is that fair that you get punished for the rest of your life for this?

      Do you really want to work for a company with such a frustratingly incompetent HR department in the first place?

      "if it's indeed a small error, surely you'd still find acceptance from some people, if not forgiven by all. It's for others to decide, not you."

      This message board has <quote></quote> tags. Stop being a lazy cunt and use them, or even just hit that button at the bottom that says "Quote Parent".

    4. Re:The things is , individual abuse this by KevReedUK · · Score: 1

      "if it's indeed a small error, surely you'd still find acceptance from some people, if not forgiven by all. It's for others to decide, not you."

      This message board has <quote></quote> tags. Stop being a lazy cunt and use them, or even just hit that button at the bottom that says "Quote Parent".

      Quick point to note... You don't get the "quote parent" button if you're using the mobile view of /. It's also a royal PITA to manually type those tags in using a mobile interface. Personally, I would like to see the "quote parent" button implemented on the mobile interface, and I'm sure that there are a sizable number of others who would concur. At least until they do implement this, cut posters like aepervius some slack.

      --
      Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
    5. Re:The things is , individual abuse this by davydagger · · Score: 1

      this is absolutely correct. However, Americans love a good lynch mob, and American Media likes to blow things out of proportion, especially non-existant threats posed by people who are outsiders to society, government, and the econony. In fact its essential to People feeling fearful and needing a large government to protect them.

      There is no "free speech" either, as the government censors, and the press covers up, or simply hushes up the worst done by people in power. There is a "privledge of being forgotten", which is something celebrities, the rich, politicians, and those who've earned their favor(like witness protection), have.

      "the public has the right to know", and "threats to the public", are some what sham answers, because they are very much one sided

  14. This can be gamed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There have already been cases where the request to be forgotten has not come from the main subject of the article as people assumed, but from others, including people posting comments on the article.

    So, if you really want to prolong the humiliation of someone that had and unfortunate story or picture published, post a comment, request to be forgotten and the witch-hunters (and BBC) will Streisand-effect the original subject for you.

  15. Comments do not work like that by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

    Please, please, please, don't start your comment in the subject. That's not what it's for. It's seriously fucking annoying. Netiquette, it's not just for USENET anymore. And it never was.

    The system did not work like that ALl of us born ebfore google remember it. Just because google come and suddenly nothing is forgotten, does not mean it is a good thing.

    The system does work like that. When an action becomes acknowledged as commonplace in society, the next generation discriminates against it less. Alternately, a problem which is hidden rather than being pointed out is never fixed. Example, selective enforcement, which shields the wealthy (who buy laws) from the results of bad laws.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. isn't banning new, removing existing Google links by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Funny you should say that, because these are all requests to remove existing links that already appear on Google.

  17. the user can decide their own use case. Relevance by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > and then the classic : you get drunk and do something stupid somebody get a photo. Pre-2000 a good memory to share between friend. Past 2000 google+facebook : a friend which unwittingly may cost you a good job.

    Photos of a person getting drunk and acting stupid would be completely irrelevant for some things, very relevant for others. If I'mhiring someone yo replace my roof, I don't care what you do on the weekend. I can decide that's not relevant to my decision. If you're applying for a job on the next Jackass movie, those pictures may help you get the job. If you're applying for a job as an airline pilot, a habit of heavy drinking will negatively affect your prospects. If you've asked me out on a date and I'm a partier, I may see that and think you look like a fun person to hang out with. If you've asked my 16 year old daughter on a date and you like posting "get drunk and stupid" pictures ...

    The reader of the information is in a position to consider the totality of the circumstances and decide what's relevant and not. This court ordered Google to decide what's relevant to a given situation without any way to know what the situation is. I think the court may need to look up the word "relevant". No fact is irrelevant itself, it's only relevant or irrelevant in a particular use case.

  18. fuck the EU, fuck the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where do I get a full list of these links? let's create a search engine that only indexes redacted links, including the links google killed because of DMCA. and lets kill all the lawyers and judges who keep supporting the DMCA. how does the fucking DMCA allow for the censorship of a hyperlink, and how is that even constitutional...

    1. Re:fuck the EU, fuck the USA by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      where do I get a full list of these links?

      There is no publicly accessible list of these links.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:fuck the EU, fuck the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where do I get a full list of these links?

      https://www.google.com/transpa...

  19. the removal was "not a good judgement" by Google? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    No, the law is not a good judgement by the EU. It is censorship, and fuck that.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  20. How to find the articles by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Deleting the Google links is a quite serious hindrance to scholarship and informed research today. One may as well put it here (with due credit to Douglas Adams for writing this.

            "But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

            "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

  21. Re:Article or link - ??? by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

    Please describe how "stop words" would do this.

    Google would have to detect queries with certain specified characteristics and NOT display certain relevant results

    So, the comlaint would have to specify WHAT (the page), and WHY (the search criteria). Of course, that is in context of the search criteria of today.

    This would have to work for FUTURE queries as well. And, future query mechanisms. To stay within the spirit of this law, the only reliable solution is to remove the page from the index. After all, this is supposed to allow "forgetting" the information. Google has no control of the source -- in this case, this is the BBC. Google is responding to a "right to forget". And, yes, the page is forgotten. That would be the spirit of this law. If the BBC has an issue with that, they should take it up with the EU.

    An association is outdated if the information itself isn't? The association is the result of a search -- Google doesn't store all possible associations!

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  22. BBC will be next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't they realise that by doing this, they will provoke the EU courts to go after them? They are most certainly not any more immune from the law than Google is, if anything they're worse as they are based in the EU !

  23. Google should make it hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google should honor every single takedown request regardless of how specious it is, and delete huge amounts of links, enough to make it hurt - so there will be grassroots outrage that reverses the policy. By being selective, Google's government-imposed censorship will never hurt enough people for anyone to care.

  24. Re:the user can decide their own use case. Relevan by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    The reader of the information is in a position to consider the totality of the circumstances and decide what's relevant and not.

    What a load of cock you're writing here. Google doesn't discriminate between what is relevant and what isn't. When someone googles you, they only get notable facts not relevant or irrelevant ones. The irrelevant ones ("loves his mum, is good with children and animals, reads widely") isn't there. "used to binge drink in his 20's at the weekend" can be discovered, but "now in his 30's just has a glass of wine with dinner on Saturdays" isn't.

    And how often have you known a newspaper or media company go back and revisit a story it got wrong to re-release it with all of the correct information? ALMOST NEVER unless threatened with a law suit and very few people can afford those. Controls on information are sorely needed if only for the simple reason that people change over time but the information available out there about them may not.

  25. Create reasonable excalation path by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is an idea.

    Create an independent authority to evaluate requests for content deprecation. If the authority approves the request it would issue a "certificate for content deprecation". With this certificate the individual would request the content publisher to redact the offending content. The publisher would have some reasonable amount of time to comply or appeal. These should be binding in the EU, so if a publisher does not comply the individual can take them to court.

    If the publisher is outside the EU jurisdiction AND they fail to comply with the content removal request within reasonable amount of time, then the authority would issue an index removal request to search engines.

    This would remove google (or any single commercial entity) from the decision path. It would provide best outcome - the removal of the offending content by the publisher. As last resort it would filter out search results for non complying publishers.

  26. yet they were ordered to do just that by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > What a load of cock you're writing here. Google doesn't discriminate between what is relevant and what isn't.

    The topic we're discussing is that a European court ordered Google to hide information which is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant". Note two of the three things Google is ordered to decide are relevance - Google must decide if the information is irrelevant or no longer relevant, the court ordered.

    The case was a guy who didn't pay his bills and eventually his property was auctioned off to pay the bills. If you're considering hiring the guy to drive an ice cream truck, that information may be irrelevant. If you're considering partnering with him to open a restaurant which will require a $200,000 investment, that information may be very relevant indeed. Google can't possibly decide if the information is relevant since it doesn't know the reader's purpose for seeking information about the guy, but the court ordered them to make that determination.

  27. Troll? Trololol. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I know I'm cutting too close to the bone when someone becomes so incensed by what I am saying that they must mod me down for it. I believe both parts of my comment. If you want to claim I went offtopic, so be it, but I was also clearly on topic.

    Or in summary: To the moderator: waaaaaaaah

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  28. Re:the user can decide their own use case. Relevan by davydagger · · Score: 1

    redactions happen on page 12 in small print, and no one ever reads them. They correct bad information all the time, but in a format that most people miss, because its so obscure. Your not alone in missing it, but your somewhat correct that it almost might as well not exist, because its published in a way no one notices.

  29. As a US Corporation... by maz2331 · · Score: 1

    Google should just flip the EU their middle finger and close all operations there. No personnel whatsoever in the EU, and all advertising business through US brokers.