BBC Curates The "Right To Be Forgotten" Links That Google Can't

An anonymous reader writes, quoting the BBC's Internet Blog: "Since a European Court of Justice ruling last year, individuals have the right to request that search engines remove certain web pages from their search results. Those pages usually contain personal information about individuals." The BBC, however, is not obligated to completely censor the results, and so has taken an approach that other media outlets would do well to emulate: they're keeping a list of those pages delisted by the search engines, and making them easy to find through the BBC itself. Why? The BBC has decided to make clear to licence fee payers which pages have been removed from Google's search results by publishing this list of links. Each month, we'll republish this list with new removals added at the top. We are doing this primarily as a contribution to public policy. We think it is important that those with an interest in the “right to be forgotten” can ascertain which articles have been affected by the ruling. We hope it will contribute to the debate about this issue. We also think the integrity of the BBC's online archive is important and, although the pages concerned remain published on BBC Online, removal from Google searches makes parts of that archive harder to find.

Comments

That's good

[pahles]

It will surely spark some debate!

Re:That's good

[whoever57]

Here is one to debate.

Re:That's good

[AmiMoJo]

Let's discuss this article that was the subject of a removal request: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-sco...

It's about a rape. The only people mentioned are the criminal, the police inspector in charge of the case and the criminal's friend. The criminal wouldn't have been able to make the request (it's relevant), and there is little reason for the inspector to want to, so it was almost certainly the friend. Or probably ex-friend now.

There is no suggestion that the friend did anything wrong. None at all. He was just caught up in someone else's crime, and the media decided to name him because they can. Is it reasonable to have reports of this incident immediately served up when any potential employer googles his name? It's not really relevant, but it is very embarrassing. It talks about his private sex life, and associates him with someone who committed a horrible crime. I'm sure a lot of employers would think twice about hiring someone like that, especially in a role where they deal with customers who might google their name. It sucks but it's also true.

Re:That's good

[BradleyUffner]

Is it reasonable to have reports of this incident immediately served up when any potential employer googles his name?

Yes. Google's job is to index the context of web pages. Google is NOT responsible for the content or truthfulness of those pages. If web pages out there have his name on them Google should return those pages when someone searches for that string. If this man has a problem with the content of a page he should take it up with the people who published the page.

At least in a sane world, this is how things would operate.

Re:That's good

[AmiMoJo]

You could argue that it's a credit reference agency's job to report anything that might give a potential lender concern, but the law says otherwise because society decided that mistakes should eventually be forgiven and people should be allowed to reform.

Re:That's good

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's job is to index the context of web pages. Google is NOT responsible for the content or truthfulness of those pages.

Sure, and someone caught selling drugs shouldn't be arrested ... it's only the MANUFACTURER who should be guilty.

If this man has a problem with the content of a page he should take it up with the people who published the page.

I wish I lived in your idyllic world.

Re:That's good

[fustakrakich]

Google is NOT responsible for the content or truthfulness of those pages.

That's right. The reader is solely responsible for his actions, not Google, not the publisher.

Re:That's good

[Blue Stone]

Why are we letting this hypothetical employer off the hook for basing their hiring decision on this non-issue? That's my question.

The narrative that you pose is one where people must be protected from the unreasonable views and actions of third parties as a result of finding information out efficiently. Is that feasible, practical, reasonable? And how are we to ascertain if it is worthwhile? By what metric?

Re:That's good

[youngone]

I have pretty much concluded that the purpose of the "right to be forgotten" ruling is so that rich and/or politically connected individuals can have their online lives edited.

The man in the link above may well be embarrassed by the story, but there's no suggestion he had done anything illegal, so if he objects, he should be able to go to the publisher of the site.

Re:That's good

[Opportunist]

All it takes to really ruin someone's life is someone else being pissed enough at him to set up a slandering page about the first someone in a country where the police is busy fighting some real crime and can't be assed to deal with it.

Your fallacy in this context is that the laws of your country that protect you and your reputation mean jack anywhere else.

Re:That's good

[Opportunist]

Because you'll have a hard time proving he based his decision on it. And unless the rapists (ex) friend is some rare and unique specialist in a hotly contested field, the employer will just toss him and move on to the next applicant who has generally the same level of experience and training but one less "bad thing" lurking about. Real or not, relevant or not, the employer will not bother to double check. Why should he? To him, hiring A or B doesn't make a difference.

Re:That's good

[jrumney]

On the other hand, this article (7th from the top of the May 2015 list) makes no mention of anyone by name, so it may also be possible that the victim is able to request its removal, despite not being identified in the article.

Re:That's good

[Anonymous Coward]

the "right to be forgotten" ruling is so that ordinary people can have their online lives edited just as rich and/or politically connected individuals have always been able to do.

FTFY

Re:That's good

[Dog-Cow]

You are so absolutely moronic that even your parents want to forget you.

Please stop torturing those around you and kill yourself already.

Re:That's good

[LoztInSpace]

I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages. If the law is enforceable then it should call to remove content from the offending pages. Search engines can be a powerful tool to identify, enforce and provide ongoing governance. I am surprised Google failed to lobby for and monetize this approach which would have been a better outcome all round.

Re:That's good

[rtb61]

Flip side. What if someone who had the history of crime obtained de-listing from search results. Another person used search to make sure that person was safe, you know idle quick search. They appeared safe, so they established a relationship. The person with the hidden history then committed the same crime again, who does the victim sue, if they are still living from information that would have saved them from becoming a victim. Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.

Clearly search de-listing should never occur without consultative regard to the publisher of the story and it's accuracy. Technically speaking they are also unfairly devaluing that page, the cost of the effort to research and create has been stolen because otherwise that page with it's adds would have shown up.

Basically this is not about hiding slander pages, that is a fallacy, this is about hiding perfectly accurately pages because the person in question fully intends to engage in activity that other people would reject based upon that persons past behaviour. That is those other persons right. If it is a false slander page, delist it after consultation. You could do a fiscal balancing thing, get both parties the publisher and the person who wants to hide what was published, to put down some money to pay for an adjudication, say $1,000 dollars. The value of the article worth and truth is properly arbitrated and the winner gets their money back and the loser loses all round.

So publisher can let it slide, costs nothing. The publisher demands a challenge and the person wanting to hide their history can change their mind and nothing happens. Else the challenge progresses and the losers pays (most often the person seeking to hide their past behaviour because they know the story is true and accurate and people upon fair basis are not trusting them).

Re:That's good

[KGIII]

I would not want to work for a company that employed stupid people who could not grasp the content of the article you linked to. To me that indicates that, by hiring me, I will either be required to do the work of several people because they are stupid or that I am being hired because I, too, am stupid. None of those scenarios appeal to me.

Re:That's good

[KGIII]

This ami person never actually responds when they are given an answer that shows their inability to think. This is a trend that I have noticed. It was so prevalent that, in all this noise, I managed to pick it out. That is actually a bit sad considering I have the attention span of a gnat much of the time.

Re:That's good

[Anonymous Coward]

This is about history being erased from public record. Don't you see the implications?

Re:That's good

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

This is about history being erased from public record. Don't you see the implications?

No its not. No-one is suggesting that the officially archived court proceedings be retroactively redacted. (Or the officially archived copy of the newspaper in question be redacted either, for that matter).

The public records are sacrosanct and still preserved.

Re:That's good

[AmiMoJo]

Flip side. What if someone who had the history of crime obtained de-listing from search results.

The rules state that such people could not obtain a de-listing.

Re:That's good

[GoddersUK]

Oh they're still extant. But you're not allowed to talk about them (at least, not if your name's Google and it's within the context that right to be forgotten is about). Which make the fact they exist, rightly or wrongly, rather impotent. Please stop pretending this is a non-issue. If right-to-be-forgotten had as little effect as you make out people wouldn't submit requests. The fact that this is being used proves that there are consequences - consequences that we are right to debate. So don't take the cheating way out and claim there's no effect, provide a proper defence (or attack) of this so-called right.

Re:That's good

[GoddersUK]

I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.

I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger. But we do need cultural change: the level of stigma attached to bankruptcy (for instance) in Europe is far too high - I think we would do far better to adopt a bit of the US's attitude to that. But simply hiding someone's history won't make me change what I would think about their history if I were to know it - it won't address the true problem, at best it might relieve the symptoms a bit.

Re:That's good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they are.

Public records are useless if you can't find them.

Re:That's good

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing prevents proxies from obtaining a de-listing.

Re:That's good

[Xest]

"Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No."

You realise that's exactly what happens right? You know that in the UK such convictions only have to be disclosed for a certain amount of time afterwards yes?

"But simply hiding someone's history won't make me change what I would think about their history if I were to know it - it won't address the true problem, at best it might relieve the symptoms a bit."

Right, but that's a big if. If you weren't to know it then you're admitting that you will view them differently, which is kind of the point.

If we insist on condemning people indefinitely, making it impossible for rehabilitated offenders to get a job then what choice do you leave them but to go back to offending? If they can't earn money legitimately, then their only option for survival remains returning to crime.

Re:That's good

[Half-pint HAL]

Public records are useless if you can't find them.

You can find them if you want. The point of "right to be forgotten" is that in the pre-Google days, you had to go to the library and actively hunt down historical information. It is still easier to go to the BBC website and search their news archives from the comfort of your own home than it ever was to check the 1960s archives of The Times --the information is still very easy to find if you're specifically looking for it. It just makes it harder to stumble across by accident.

Maybe you believe that no good person ever has anything to hide... but then why post AC....?

Re:That's good

[Half-pint HAL]

I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.

Which is why there are provisions to remove someone's right to practice for crimes affecting their profession. And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.

I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger.

... which is where the government comes in. Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.

Re:That's good

[Half-pint HAL]

I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages.

Google is not a dumb index -- Google is a collection of cutting edge data-mining and artificial intelligence algorithms designed to provide data that is of direct relevance to the user's query. That is Google's job.

The European ruling was not about the deletion of information, it was a point about the relevance of information. A spent conviction is legally considered irrelevant, except in certain careers (particularly working with children) and therefore shouldn't be something that Google's algorithm returns. The immediate result was a headache for Google as they were flooded with requests, but this no doubt had an effect on their page ranking, increasing the bias towards recent information (fewer old hits should mean fewer right-to-be-forgotten requests in the long term).

As the internet gets older and bigger, Google's approach to search is starting to look too simple anyway. I can remember when I could find anything I wanted with a few clicks, but now the search resilts are full of amateur "Me too" pages, and the pages with the real information are lost in the noise. When I want to find old stuff I'm often crowded out with new stuff, and vice versa.

In future we will need to return tomore structured search, with date filtering etc to get any useful data out of our systems.

Re:That's good

[Half-pint HAL]

Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.

That's a question for the law of the land and is based on the severity of the crime and bakancing the desire for rehabilitation of offenders against fear of recedivism. Every country has its own laws on the disclosure of criminal offences, and these laws are carefully considered to achieve balance.

Now imagine if you googled your name, and you found that 6 years ago, someone from your hometown, who shares your name and approximate age had gone on a spree of sexual violence and murder fueled by illicit drugs. None of the articles had a photo of the offender. Would you want the article delisted, or would you be standing up for people's right to ostracise you in order to protect the safety of "potential victims"? (See also common Arabic names and the US no-fly list.)

Re:That's good

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Of course you can find them. What do you think libraries are for? Just a place to get free WiFi?

I swear, kids today wouldn't have survived fifteen minutes in the eighties...

Re:That's good

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Of course it has effect. There's such a thing as being too easy. Now, Jan Freese, the former head of the Swedish data inspection authority wrote a very good book on the subject, many, many years ago (in the mid eighties if memory serves), which unfortunately is in Swedish, so it won't do you much good. But one of his main points was that the existence of information isn't the main problem, but that manual barriers to its processing is.

It is my opinon that its become too bloody easy to find out too much about people today, for no good reason. In the important cases (not hiring child molesters at the day care) the data is still there, and still accessible for the concerned parties. That's not a problem. That everybody else should have access to the same data at the drop of a hat, needs to be argued. "Just because we can" isn't much of an argument.

So no. My original argument still stands. The data is there, no-one is arguing that is should be redacted. But that's not to say that the barriers to automatic processing should necessarily be as low as humanly possible. There aren't just benefits, there are risks as well.

P.S. And "information doesn't want to be free". If it wants anything it's to be $4.95, but even that is giving it much too much credit.

Re:That's good

[rtb61]

So you could demand clarification in the article and request an image of the person described be included. What you are really asking for is the exact opposite of the right to be forgotten ie the right for others to ensure the individual is accurately identified and not confused with others.

Re:That's good

[Half-pint HAL]

Further up the discussion, people were complaining about this ruling censoring the public record... and now your suggestion is that we should be going back and rewriting historical documents. That seems far more censorious to me.

Re:That's good

[GoddersUK]

You realise that's exactly what happens right? You know that in the UK such convictions only have to be disclosed for a certain amount of time afterwards yes?

Is/aught. And yes, I am aware of that fact.

If you weren't to know it then you're admitting that you will view them differently, which is kind of the point.

No, I'm suggesting that trying to invoke the Streisand effect will neither effectively hide the past nor effect social change. Since we can't hide the past we should go for social change instead. Which is exactly what I said in the later part of that paragraph.

Re:That's good

[GoddersUK]

And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.

No, it's my business to decide who I think makes a suitable accountant for ME, not the governments. End of.

Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.

Do they really? Or is it just that the level of risk is too high for most people to stomach for themselves, despite their willingness to push it on others? I don't see what business anyone else has deciding what level of risk I want to accept into my business dealings.

Re:That's good

[Xest]

People aren't invoking the Streisand effect though, the amount of people whose names are more publicised relative to those who have personal data illegally held by data removed are negligible. This is working well for most people because if they came to you for a job interview and you Googled their name, you would find fuck all on them, which is kind of the point.

Re:That's good

[Half-pint HAL]

Do you take your own ripubbish to the dump? Do you perform your own safety checks on roads? Do you get to choose the width of the vehicle you drive? Society only exists by removing individual freedom.

Re:That's good

[RockDoctor]

Google's job is to index the context of web pages.

Not true. Google's job is to make money for it's shareholders, which it does by serving targeted (and therefore, hopefully, relevant) adverts to web users. And it achieves that result by having a very large collection of information about it's users. And it achieves that by being a very popular search engine, which attracts a lot of users. And it became a very popular search engine by having a wide-ranging spider and a good relevance matcher (PigeonRank, IIRC). Being an indexer of web pages is very important to Google, I agree. But it is a very long way from being a core aim (let alone a "duty") of the company.

In terms of achieving business aims, Google's acquisition of information about it's customers by releasing Android, populated with Google apps, may already be returning more of that advertising revenue then the search engine. I can envisage the day that Google decides (on a good business case) stops providing search.

Or sooner, Google stops providing search to non-registered users.

Weird

[Intrepid imaginaut]

There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?

Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.

Re:Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

"The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?

Possibly either (i) Eve Carlile is now married to some guy, and she applied for the removal herself, or (ii) Eve Carlile's mother/father/family requested the removal for some obscure reason.

Re:Weird

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Even weirder I just googled the name "Eve Carlile" and google turned up the BBC news story just fine - and I'm in Europe.

Re:Weird

[buchner.johannes]

There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison

Do you have any reasons for your presumption, or are you just babbeling? Maybe they were falsely convicted as rapists and murderers, the ruling overturned and they do not want to be called rapists and murderers every time someone types their name into Google, for the rest of their lives. The fraction of falsely accused rapists is somewhere between 10-40%, and that stigma does not go away.

Re:Weird

[AmiMoJo]

There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison

No. Criminals are not able to get removals under EU law until their convictions are spent, and for serious crimes convictions are never spent.

The removals will have been for other people mentioned in those articles, and only for searches of their names. If you search for the murder on Google the article will still come up. The articles have not been removed from Google entirely, just as results when searching for the specific person who made the request.

Re:Weird

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Do you have any reasons for your presumption, or are you just babbeling?

Their convictions in a court of law would be the reason. I'm as against feminist rape culture bullshit as any rational person, but the fact remains that rapists do exist, do go to trial, and do get convicted. I don't stand in their corner.

Re:Weird

[whoever57]

Perhaps the other person mentioned in the article made the request to be forgotten?

Re:Weird

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Nope that comes up just fine too. Try it for yourself? This list of redacted pages do not appear to have been redacted, every one I try comes up on google search results.

Re:Weird

[just another AC]

Maybe the BBC act of relisting these new articles means the source URL changed, hence google turns up a 'new' result distinct to the previously censored result.

That's my best guess at an explanation

Re: Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the story allowed comments, and someone said something in a comment that someone deemed worthy of forgetting.

Remember that Google has to delist while pages, and can not legally say why some page was delisted. Anyone can remove any page with comments by making a dumb comment and then asking Google to forget it.

Re:Weird

[dryeo]

Recently in the news again was the story of someone who spent 23 years in jail for a rape that he didn't commit (the real rapist finished his sentence by dieing). It was the usual, a drifter or other low life in the wrong place at the wrong time and a police force/DA who really wanted a conviction. It happens enough that just because someone was convicted is not a guarantee that they're guilty. There's also been quite a few people on death row exonerated of their crimes, often by DNA evidence.

Re:Weird

[gsslay]

Maybe they had second thoughts and regret talking to the BBC.

Maybe they decided it wasn't such a great idea that their children go through their early years labelled as the gay fertility child by anyone who googled Mum's name.

Maybe they decided that their medical history is like anyone else's; personal and private.

Re:Weird

[Half-pint HAL]

There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?

Probably something to do with children. Like maybe they gave up on fertility treatment and adopted, and don't want the kid to think he/she was "second choice".

Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.

That's exactly what right-to-be-forgotten should be about -- stopping little embarassing moments defining you in other people's eyes.

Take a moment to remember...

[Tokolosh]

,,,those who have been forgotten.

Re:Take a moment to remember...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you suppose they'll be deleting entries from the obituaries?

I'm not dead!

What?

Nothing...

I'm getting better

No you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment...

Re:Take a moment to remember...

[just another AC]

"BBC - lest we forget..."

Re:Take a moment to remember...

[phantomfive]

If someone told me this was from The Onion , I would have believed them.

Good Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's revisit what it means to be a "search engine" so internal search engines are included.

Re:Good Job

[Kkloe]

google doesnt have an newspaper licence or what they are called, and with that forcing them to be removed would impede on free speech(if the country follows that)

can someone from Europe please explain

[circletimessquare]

why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?

it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink

it seems so absurd. i can't imagine a group of adults believing in or supporting such a ridiculous concept

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[fahrbot-bot]

i can't imagine a group of adults believing in or supporting such a ridiculous concept

Watch CSPAN and you'll see just what kind of ridiculous things adults can believe in and support - what kind of serious things they won't.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems so absurd. i can't imagine a group of adults believing in or supporting such a ridiculous concept

Oh, I can imagine at least two groups of adults that would be naive enough... People with Down Syndrome and politicians. The difference is subtle.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

> why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?

Why do you think that anyone even considered "forced delinking"? Because the only "facts" you've read about this case come from shills for the data-mining industry?

At the time that the data protection directive was formulated, its primary target was the personal credit rating industry, although it didn't specifically limit itself to that.

The directive requires that any personally-identifiable information in a database is accurate and "relevant", and that there is a means for the individual concerned to confirm this, and to have inaccurate or irrelevant information removed. It doesn't matter whether the database is accessible to the public or only to customers, or the intended use of the database.

There is an exemption to this for certain primary sources (e.g. news organisations), in order to preserve the historical record. But Google's search engine isn't a primary source (unlike the BBC).

The "right to be forgotten" is nothing more than a ruling that Google isn't somehow exempt from the provisions of the directive. The fact that it runs contrary to Google's business model (i.e. storing whatever data they can get their hands on) doesn't change that.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[bidule]

In fact, why not get a judgement to get the original data removed from the original web page? It would vanish from Google.

Or why not get Google to downrate web pages deemed illegal by a judgement?

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[circletimessquare]

exactly

it's just such a moronic and absurd concept, forced content delinking

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[kthreadd]

why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?

it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink

it seems so absurd. i can't imagine a group of adults believing in or supporting such a ridiculous concept

I'm from Europe and I think this is absurd. It's not like we're one homogeneous mind that agrees on everything.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[Pentium100]

Because the original content may be on a server that is outside the jurisdiction of the court. The same reason is why MPAA wants Google to remove links to torrents.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[AmiMoJo]

it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink

Name one of the people who requested de-linking. You can't, because you don't have that information. It could have been anyone mentioned in the articles. At best you can make an educated guess, but who cares? There is no list, potential employers or lenders won't get that result when searching for a particular name, so it seems to have worked pretty well.

Apart from the first guy who made the first request, can you name a single person who has done so?

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[bidule]

Except in this case it's the BBC. Is it that hard to get a judgement in the UK?

Re: can someone from Europe please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Against the BBC? Absolutely; they are a law unto themselves. As this topic clearly shows, the rights of citizens as affirmed by the highest European courts mean nothing to the BBC.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[circletimessquare]

the information is still there

you think it's hard to use another search engine or use a proxy and search from an IP address in another country without the moronic law?

the law purports to make public info magically not exist. why don't we pass laws against gravity while we're at it?

so fucking stupid

Re: can someone from Europe please explain

[ihtoit]

humam rights means fuck all to any but the Government apologists who think Britain should stay in Europe and pay the EC seven million pounds a day for the privilege of being told how to run itself.

It's about time we got back to talking about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, which trumps CORPORATE RIGHTS, trumps STATE RIGHTS and is INVIOLABLE and NOT FOR YOU TO GIVE AWAY AND NOT FOR ME TO TAKE.

Remember the maxim: anything given is worth nothing.
Also remember this one: anything given can also be taken away.

At best, human rights are illusory. At worst, they are a harmful distraction from the fact that INDIVIDUAL rights are being summarily IGNORED in Law.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[KGIII]

I am too lazy to try. Use a UK proxy. Search for every name in the article. Keep searching until you find a name that does not bring up the BBS page. You have then found out the name of the person who had the name removed.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[circletimessquare]

the subject we are talking about is info being censored. the subject is not who is doing the censoring. you don't make any valid points by changing the subject

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[KGIII]

I think you failed to understand my point. I was re-enforcing your response to Ami about how futile this attempt is.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[Godwin O'Hitler]

"can someone from Europe please explain"

No of course we fucking can't. It's not us who pull these ideas out of our arses.
It's not even the people we duly elected to the European parliament who pull them out of their arses.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you believe those in power care anything about this scheme working? They wanted the power to control the dissemination of content within their borders. They now have that control. They are now the gate keepers, open to the highest bidder, with Google as their good little corporate b1tch.

Re:can someone from Europe please explain

[Half-pint HAL]

why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?

it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink

Only in a handful of cases. I'm sure I said some things on Usenet way back when that would really embarass me if they ever bubbled up to the top of the search results. I'm sure I used some very un-PC terminology about homosexuals in my younger years, and while I am ashamed of my younger intolerance, there really would be nothing to gain from publically shaming me now. I am reformed. I am no longer homophobic. So yeah... If any such comments ever started appearing at the top of the search results, I'd certainly want to get the struck off the index.

Holy buckets!

[AndyKron]

Looking at some of those links it's obvious the "right to be forgotten" law is extremely dangerous to the free press.

Re:Holy buckets!

[AmiMoJo]

How does this affect the freedom of the press? Keep in mind that the article is still on the site and findable with Google, just not for the one specific name that requested the removal. The person making the request will have to have reasonable grounds, e.g. criminals with unspent convictions can't cover up their past this way.

How exactly does this affect the freedom of the press to publish what they like on their own web sites?

Re:Holy buckets!

[phantomfive]

Because if you can't find it, then it might as well not exist.

Re:Holy buckets!

[phantomfive]

Here's the first link I found related to a politician.

Re:Holy buckets!

[Anonymous Coward]

If what someone did is grave enough to warrant publishing their name, why should it ever be deleted? It's not like by serving their sentences they have undone the harm they did, or been born again as a new person. And the only one who could potentially forgive a crime is the victim, not the state or the press or a search engine. Even forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting.

Re:Holy buckets!

[Halo1]

Here's the first link I found related to a politician.

And guess what: if you search either for the politician or his son, the article is still found (first hit on the BBC site, in fact):
* https://www.google.com/search?...
* https://www.google.com/search?...

So neither the politician nor his son had the search results removed. Although if it had been removed when searching for the son's name, I would understand it. While politicians are public figures and cannot have such search results removed under the ruling (because there is a public interest in those results), I'm not sure the same holds for their family (it's not the son's choice that his father is a politician).

Re:Holy buckets!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can still find it. The newspaper clippings are still there, as are the court documents.

So since your complaint against this law is "If you can't find it" is mooted by these facts, you'll be fine with it, right? Or was that claim just bollocks rationalisation of what you "feel" rather than what you *think*?

Re:Holy buckets!

[Xest]

What nonsense, so historical news might as well have not existed before the internet?

How do you think journalists used to dig up past stories and such? Requiring someone to get off their fat ass to find something does not mean it does not exist. It just means you have to put some effort in, and if the digging is worth the effort? well that's your call.

Re:Holy buckets!

[Anonymous Coward]

...been born again as a new person

Um, that's the point of serving a sentence: rehabilitation. Otherwise you may as well just lock them up permanently, because why on earth would you release dangerous people back into society. Conversely, if they've been rehabilitated, why would you not let them reintegrate, i.e. stop persecuting them once they've completed their sentence?

Re:Holy buckets!

[phantomfive]

The entire point is to make things hard to find.

Not only the BBC but Wikipedia as well

[Anonymous Coward]

See here where some crook gets his own Wikipedia entry delisted from Google:

Google removes Wikipedia link to former criminal ‘the Monk’

Wikipedia swears to fight 'censorship' of 'right to be forgotten' ruling

Death penalty

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, ...

Why we should just kill those people. Even if they could be rehabilitated, they are doomed. Killing them would be a mercy killing.

If I were caught pissing in public or something, I would want to die because my life is OVER.

Re:Death penalty

[umghhh]

If you were caught at 3am urinating in playground of a kindergarten while on the way from a session then you may find yourself on register as child molester, destroying your life indeed forever.
This may be pushing us all into either keeping all convinced rapists etc in public housing also after they served their sentence or we would have to offer them some way of hiding their real ID which would make finding them difficult enough for an average Joe. With progress of technology the late option will be less and less viable I suppose. So either this, they go into underground or we have to accept them as they are among us.
I am not sure how this relates to court orders about removal of misinformation about your alleged deeds but somehow I find none of the options really acceptable.

Because job outfit only look for links in google

[aepervius]

Why would you having been in debt should bar you from a new job ? Why being lesbian should bring you problem ? Why a petty theft when you were 18 should still haunt you when you are 30 ? Keep in mind most justice system are rehabilitating in Europe, not mostly retributive like the US one. And you have as such a right to have for your average sentence to not have a fault you paid for with prison haunt you and bar your new job (there are some exception e.g. pedophilia due to the nature of the law breaking). If every job seeker are looked up in google and the first stuff which pops up is something you did 10 years ago and either grew out of it, or paid the price with a prison, that would bar you from occupation and reintegration into society, and make recidivism more probable. Asking firm to not do that would not work due to human nature. Removing it from google would work.

Keep in mind that until end of the 90ies we HAD a way to be forgotten : nobody would go into paper clip from 10 years before and check what you did. But with google even the most minor stuff stays forever. As I mentioned here, a society which do not forget, is a society which (on average) do not forgive. And that make rehabilitation far harder. You want to live in a society which do not forget even the slightiest transgression ? Well good luck with that. I certainly do not want. Not because I am a law breaking human, but because freedom lies at the edge of the road, not in the middle. And that is not even counting what children/teenager/young adult can do stupid legal stuff which can mark them forever, like partying drunk and being in the news. Well before the 90ies unless you want into archive journal you would never know as an employer. Nowadays if somebody catch you you have no recourse google remember forever. Heck just being outted as gay, lesbian or even transsexual can bring you a lot of problem, even in western democracy like the US. Thus the right to be forgotten. BBC should really be the first to understand that. But I am guessing they would rather fuck up people than admit it. And yes I am aware that some bad people will try to abuse it. That is why normally the court should be the one deciding whether a right to be forgotten is there , or not.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

I wouldn't want to work for a company who judged me for the stupid shit I did as a teenager or if I were a homosexual.

You are entitled to a private life, but if you make something public, it's public, period. No take backs. Not because I said so but because of the nature of public information.

There is no technological fix for that and Europeans, and yourself, have a deluded "solution" to a reality and a fact of life which is not actually a problem and does not go away, ever.

Own who you are, be ashamed of nothing, including your mistakes. Anyone who would bully you into submission with sensitive areas of your life is no one you should want to associate with and merely an announcement of your own insecurity and weakness.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[newcastlejon]

You are entitled to a private life, but if you make something public, it's public, period. No take backs. Not because I said so but because of the nature of public information.

For the sake of argument, what if someone with a twitter feed decides it's newsworthy and does it for you?

BBC's motto

[faway]

DO be evil? What about victims who NEED to be forgotten?

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Pentium100]

It's nice that there are a lot of job offers where you live. In other places unemployment is high so you have a choice of either working for that company or starving. And if the company won't hire you because of what you did 15 years ago...

Before search engines, there was a natural decay of public information. While there are archives of newspapers and such, it takes a lot of effort to go through it to find whether somebody was mentioned there, unless the event in question was recent and people still remembered it.

If privacy is a dead concept, why so much hate on the NSA and similar agencies? At least their database isn't public (unless somebody leaks it).

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Martin Blank]

In the short term, we're still struggling with embarrassing things that we did 5, 10, even 20 years ago. But as time goes by, there is slowly growing acceptance that people do things in private that are publicly considered to be taboo, in bad taste, or crude. One of the interesting things I observed when the Fappening was in the news is that the subjects of the hacking were, by and large, not blamed. The blame was placed on whomever stole the pictures, and few calls for apologies from the various victims were made, and I'm not aware that any of them did apologize for taking the pictures in the first place. Someone is likely to bring them up should any of them run for office, but I don't think voters will care. If anything, it makes them look a little more normal.

When Clinton's reported past drug use was reported (where he claimed not to have inhaled), people made a short fuss and then shrugged their shoulders. Less was made of the younger Bush's drug use, and even less of Obama's. Character imperfections that are shared by a significant minority (or even a majority) of the population are looked past. Where once there was a fear that the only candidates that could run for president were those best able to hide the skeletons in their closets, I think that will fade over time as many of those skeletons won't matter. Within my life, there's a good chance that someone in the White House will get there despite a sex tape being available. A fuss will be made, but ultimately, most people will care more about other matters than that someone recorded their sexual activities.

Please forget history

[Midnight Thunder]

My question is at what point does the right to be forgotten interfere with the need for historical record. For example, the British asking Google to forget about that wholeb Boston Tea Party thing which made them look bad. Sure this is not about an individual, but where is that line drawn?

Re: Please forget history

[Anonymous Coward]

At the level of the individual?

Re:Please forget history

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure you're joking, but if you think anyone over here gives a shit about the Boston Tea Party -- or indeed that many people, even some in government perhaps, have any idea what it was -- you'd be very surprised.

It's an event of signficance in your culture. It means very little to ours. Believe it or not, there is no wringing of hands about the loss of the americas. Our greatest period in history happened _well_ after that.

In terms of subliminal impact on our culture I'd say the British/American War of 1812 was far more significant. But even that...

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[janoc]

I am sorry, but this is BS. This charitable idea unfortunately rests on the false premise that Internet works the same way as press does (and thus one can control and censor it using the same means).

This is not about kids being drunk and getting a photo of them sleeping in a garbage bin posted on some news website - that sort of stuff will pretty much disappear after few years by itself, because it is expensive to maintain all this crap accessible and its publicity value has been zero few hours after it was published already

The larger problem is that a lot of information that is public in common interest gets suppressed - e.g. why a crook should have the information about their crime removed only because they feel like it? E.g. here in Europe it is common that for many jobs you have to bring a copy of your criminal record showing that you haven't been convicted. Expunging something from there typically takes an act of court and many years (typically only after 10-20 years after the sentence has been completed you can ask the court to expunge it). If a kid was stupid and landed in jail, having their crime removed from Google will help them exactly zilch. Then you have people who want to have information about them suppressed for vanity or political reasons - that is straight censorship and there is little reason why that should be allowed.

The search engines shouldn't be (and cannot be) the ones shouldering the burden of whether some of these requests should or shouldn't be allowed. They don't have the resources to judge whether or not the request is valid and they have a conflict of interest as well - it is pretty much to be expected that they will simply remove stuff by default in order to reduce the hassle and avoid having to go through courts (why would they - it would be only a net loss for them either way, even if they won it). So in the most cases the public interest just flies out of the window. .

Finally, this approach of how to achieve the goals of removing the information is completely bogus - basically it is like court-mandated sticking head in the sand so that you don't see the problem. That you stick the head in the sand doesn't mean that the problem ceases to exist - the fact that Google or Bing stop listing the information doesn't mean that the original website that has actually hosted the information pulls it down as well. So nothing has been actually "forgotten" and it only takes a search on something like Yandex or some other search engine that doesn't care about these requests (e.g. BBC) to uncover it again. I am pretty sure that sensation-hungry tabloids will be using this to fish out juicy dirt in the future. So what has been achieved apart from spending millions on a bogus remedy here? Andersen's Emperor's New Clothes comes to mind here - it only takes one person to yell that the emperor is naked ...

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[AmiMoJo]

Agreed, if *you* make something public. Unfortunately people can and do get caught up in things they have no control over. There are some things it is impossible to prevent becoming public knowledge too, such as your previous gender or matters of public record like bankruptcies or criminal convictions. The law does however limit reporting of those things in certain ways - for example credit agencies can't report bankruptcies past a certain time limit, and employers can't ask about and don't have to be told about spent convictions.

There is no technological fix for that and Europeans

Actually this seems to be working quite well, as the court intended. Can you say how it is failing? Sure, the information is there, but it doesn't come up on Google when you search for that person's name. That's what they wanted, and I don't see any indication that it is not working. We don't even know the names of the people who made the requests in most instances.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[CrimsonAvenger]

You are entitled to a private life, but if you make something public, it's public, period. No take backs. Not because I said so but because of the nature of public information.

For the sake of argument, what if someone with a twitter feed decides it's newsworthy and does it for you?

Umm, for someone with a twitter feed to decide some part of your private life is newsworthy, you had to have told him about that part of your private life.

And once you tell someone something, it's no longer "private".

Remember: "three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead"....

need a new search engine for this :)

[Anonymous Coward]

There are multiple places now that the "forgotten" links are explicitly put. Someone could start a search engine just for those.

Given that this force-delinking has been used by some real nasty people to "sanitize" their public image, it seems like a very dangerous road. The internet will crumble if we insist on censoring it.

Other removed results?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they curate DMCA'd links as well, or do large corporations get preferential treatment once again?

Re:Other removed results?

[Tokolosh]

https://chillingeffects.org/

Keep kids out of it

[namgge]

A number of the BBC stories amount to publicity-seeking parents violating the privacy of their non-censenting children by allowing them to be named as subjects in, particularly health-related, stories.

Note for parents: Children are not your property. Even if you think that publishing self-serving stories about them in the media or on the web is your prerogative they will eventually grow up and decide that you had no f***ing business so to do.

Re:Keep kids out of it

[Anonymous Coward]

you seem particularly sore on the topic, were you listed publicly in a micropenis study?

Re:Keep kids out of it

[Anonymous Coward]

If what you say is true, the content should be deleted according to the BBC's own guidelines:

7.4.6 When children are to be featured in our output in a way that would infringe a legitimate expectation of privacy, we should normally gain their informed consent (wherever possible) and the informed consent of a parent, legal guardian or other person of 18 or over acting in loco parentis.

[emphasis mine]
This policy is quite progressive compared to the outrageously widespread opinion that children are per definition incapable of giving consent and totally subject to the whims of their custodians.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[MechaStreisand]

You are a worthless piece of shit. You wouldn't want to work for that company? Fuck you, working for a living is not optional in today's society. Not everyone has the luxury of doing only the jobs they want. Go kill yourself.

i cannot stand these so called rights

[Anonymous Coward]

hi i was total piece of crap in my youth and got where i am today at everyones expense how dare you think your entitled to bring up my past, you fuckers wrote these writs of dumbass Abide by them.

Payment

[nnet]

So, I wonder what the Beeb's going to pay the people in whom the data is about. After all, why should they get to make money off people's desire to be forgotten.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

then you should stop hanging around douchebags and/ or stop telling private stuff to douchebags

for once that douchebag makes your private details public, it's public

i mean an asshole can throw you out a window too. that's wrong. but just because it's wrong doesn't mean you magically didn't get thrown out a window and magically didn't die. you can't take that back

likewise, information that has been made public, stays public. if it got public by nefarious means, so what? punish the nefarious piece of shit that made it public. you can't say "it's wrong it's not fair" and pout and then it magically becomes private again

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

so people should be judged for stupid shit they did as teenagers and should be ashamed of that their entire life? out of fear of remaining employed by narrow minded douchebags? that's your vision of life? you're a weak piece of shit aren't you

but you are right: before the internet this info decayed. and? so what

welcome to a new age

technology changes things. life before nuclear power, the gun, the printing press: all very different

society was, is, and will be dramatically altered by new technology. i'm certain some nobleman somewhere started pouting it wasn't fair peasants were now reading and demanding something called "democracy" too. so we shouldn't adapt new technology?

things change. can't put the genie back in the bottle friend. adapt or die

however, i agree with you: i too think it's lame someone might be judged for stupid shit they did in high school 20 years later or for their sexuality. so i think we have the basis for an actually effective, moral law: prosecution of piece of shit bosses for moronic shallow employment decisions

but certainly not a dumb law like "we can magically make public info private in the age of the internet"

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

if i push you out a window that's not fair. but you can't take it back either just because it's not fair. you can and should prosecute me for pushing you out a window. but you can't magically snap your fingers and magically you never fell out a window. same if i divulged your private info publicly

Can you say how it is failing? Sure, the information is there

uhhh...

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

you're not going to stay employed long with that moronic level of hotheadedness friend

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

well said

This is clever of BBC

[Maow]

These stories hosted at BBC will be indexed and ... require another request under Right To Be Forgotten.

Kind of a cheeky end run around the spirit (at least) of the law, it seems to me.

Re:This is clever of BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

The way it works is not that the pages are removed from Google, but that they don't show up when you search for a particular name. They will never show up when you search for that name. Since the big page 'o links don't have the name of the person who invoked the Right, Google wouldn't be likely to display that page when you search for that name anyway.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[SvnLyrBrto]

That's the thing that drive me nuts about this.

If something is legitimately libelous or defamatory, pretty much every country has a mechanism to have said content removed at the source. Remove the false content, and the next time Google spiders the site, it's gone from Google too. All the "right to be forgotten" is, is a method to censor the truth.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

exactly. it's not effective, at best it's a weak lame censorship that will be abused

Defamation lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Seriously. Class action, even. Don't you expect some lawyer for the class to just jump on the opportunity to attack an organization with enough funds for a payday? Why should a "Right to be forgotten" privacy law that applies to Google not apply to the BBC or any other media company? The BBC has deep enough pockets to be a target/example for this.

Posting as AC for privacy purposes. :P

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Jiro]

I wouldn't want to work for a company who judged me for the stupid shit I did as a teenager or if I were a homosexual.>/blockquote>

I would like to work for a company who enables me to earn money that I can use to eat and pay rent.

It's easy to say "I wouldn't want to work for a company that wouldn't hire me" if you don't need a job. If you need a job, you would much rather be hired by a company who hates you than not be hired.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Jiro]

The biggest worry about people judging you because of stupid stuff on the Internet is individual private decisions, such as employers or potential dates looking you up. Public blame is not the same thing as private blame, especially in this case, where the social justice warriors are for once on the right side but their influence is limited to preventing public blame--they can't keep someone from not hiring, or dating, or renting to, a victim.

I'd also expect that the effects of the Fappening are unusually low because it is about celebrities. Nobody's going to refuse to hire Kim Kardashian because someone posted nude pictures of her.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

hey, i'd much rather have a job than not dying of black lung

hey, i'd much rather have a job than not be sexually harassed

hey, i'd much rather have a job than ever see my family and have a life

pretty moronic game you;re playing, no? a job doesn't justify abuse. if an employer is abusive piece of shit, someone should do something about the asshole employer. not roll over and take it up the ass. suit yourself, but not all of us are completely spineless

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Anonymous Coward]

And once you tell someone something, it's no longer "private".

Remember: "three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead"....

Exactly! That's why everything I say is copyrighted. It's not like governments have a right to remove links to copyrighted material. The BBC is really fair to not remove links to download copyrighted material from their site. They even have the balls to publish material that has a super-injunction on them. Otherwise they would just be picking on the defenseless.

(c) Copyright Anonymous Coward 2015. All rights reserved.

nice one BBC

[ihtoit]

yet you can't fucking out a kiddie fiddler operating right there inside your fucking headquarters building??

Fuck off.

Why only BBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't there be a crowdsourced list of censored pages? Btw this isn't about "being forgotten". These people want their names cleared of specific information about their past behavior (so they can do it again).

Re:Why only BBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your post is exactly WHY this right to be forgotten needs to exist.

You presume the only reason for it is "so they can do it again".

You have never sinned, right? No, you have. It's just it never got printed on the internet.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[KGIII]

Within my life, there's a good chance that someone in the White House will get there despite a sex tape being available.

That is part of my campaign strategy. Well no, it sort of is. One side of the page is a list of everything the news or people could dredge up about me and all the bad things I can think of. On the reverse is what I have learned from them and how it has effected my politics. It is still being edited. I will probably share it online when it comes out.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Pentium100]

I agree, there is no way to undo the technology, the "right to be forgotten" cannot be enforced without really clamping down on the internet, and we don't want that.

Technology changes society, however, society always lags behind usually by decades (until the people who had the technology as children grow old). At some point in the future, the boss will disregard a 20 year old page about what the candidate did when he was 15, because there probably is a similar page about the boss himself. However, currently, there is no such page about the boss if the boss is old enough.

In the past, you had to do something really unusual to appear in a newspaper etc, which means that if a newspaper did write about you, you most likely did similar things that were left unmentioned by the newspaper. Now, especially with Facebook, there probably is an account for every stupid thing you did, but an old fashioned person reading this will think that a lot more was unmentioned.

so i think we have the basis for an actually effective, moral law: prosecution of piece of shit bosses for moronic shallow employment decisions

It does not work normally. The boss can usually choose from tens if not hundreds of candidates, so he can think of a "politically correct" reason to not hire a particular candidate, even though the actual reason was his sexuality or a stupid past. If the boss asks whether you are gay, and you say yes and then he does not hire you, you may have some basis for a complaint, but if the boss does not ask (because Google told him) you do not have the basis for complaint. Also, it's not like the court can force the boss to hire you, and even if it can, do you really expect to have a good working environment and the boss not trying to find a reason to fire you?

I personally do not use Facebook, and never put my real name anywhere that can be indexed by Google. Luckily, some people who have the same name as me can be found on Google, which means I have good noise-to-signal ratio :)

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

you're acting as if an asshole bigot of a boss is some new invention the internet has given vast power to. this type of person always existed, and instead leveled his moronic judgments against you based on gossip or your appearance

the real solution is not to work for asshole bigots, or go after them if you have something actionable. what is never the solution is make believing you can censor the internet just for the sake of escaping the judgment of narrow minded assholes you don't want in your life anyway. even if such censorship magically worked, the douchebag boss will still be pulling this crap on you. he always did. he always will. the problem is the douchebag. not the technology. trying to change the technology is the wrong solution to the problem

copyright and inviduals vs corporations

[bingoUV]

for once that douchebag makes your private details public, it's public

Same can be said for copyrighted work that is released to selected members of public, say for a fee. Despite the difficulty to enforce it since the "digital revolution", society is persisting with copyright. There is no reason to believe it will not persist with some illusion of "return to privacy" too, despite it being difficult to enforce.

Is it difficult to implement? Yes. Is it valuable? Definitely more than centuries old copyright.

It is also individuals fight against corporations. Corporations are typically benefited from centuries of copyright as well as from damaging the privacy of individuals. If corporations got their illusion of centuries of copyrights, there is no reason for individuals to not get their illusion of privacy.

BRILLIANT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can now take BBC "copyrighted" content and seed torrents of it "primarily as a contribution to public policy" so that "those with an interest in the “extension of copyrights” can ascertain which articles have been affected by the ruling".

WONDERFUL!

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[AmiMoJo]

So basically you are saying don't trust anyone with anything you wouldn't want made public.

In Europe, we don't want to live in a society like that, where we all distrust each other at a fundamental level and there is absolutely no expectation of privacy or ability to leave your past mistakes behind you.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[AmiMoJo]

but certainly not a dumb law like "we can magically make public info private in the age of the internet"

That would be a dumb law, but that's not what this is. You really need to understand it before you start criticising it.

Libraries keep archives of newspapers, often on microfiche. Any articles about you are recorded there indefinitely, but they are not easy to find. Someone has to go there, have some idea of what they are looking for and where and when it find it, and then spend considerable time manually searching.

Then credit reference agencies came along and started collecting data about people and selling it on for profit. Suddenly it became much easier to find out if someone went bankrupt 20 years ago. People realize this was a bad thing, because a mistake 20 years ago could prevent that person from say getting a mortgage or starting a new business, despite not having had any problems since then. So laws were introduced to limit what credit reference agencies could report.

The story about that bankruptcy is still there, sitting in a library archive somewhere, maybe even on the paper's web site. But it isn't easy to find, and most people won't bother going to the lengths needed to discover it.

So, it's actually a very sensible, practical law that works in the real world.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[AmiMoJo]

Can you say how it is failing? Sure, the information is there

uhhh...

Keep reading...

"but it doesn't come up on Google when you search for that person's name. That's what they wanted"

So please explain how the law has failed to have the desired effect (the article is not associated with that person's name by Google).

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[cascadingstylesheet]

Heck just being outted as gay, lesbian or even transsexual can bring you a lot of problem, even in western democracy like the US.

Or it can get you on the front page of every magazine, and revive your seriously fading celebrity.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Anonymous Coward]

I rescind the copyright declaration in my previous statement and now apply the CC-PD license to all previous posts released under the name "Anonymous Coward" Regards, Aninymous Coward.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Half-pint HAL]

Google is suppose to rank pages by relevance. The European ruling was that Google was returning hits that are not relevant.

and yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked (from France) but on google.co.uk all three names and all three link to this article in Google's index. So who has asked for that page to be forgotten? Can anyone check from within the UK?

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Anonymous Coward]

I rescind the copyright declaration in my previous statement and now apply the CC-PD license to all previous posts released under the name "Anonymous Coward"

Regards,
Aninymous Coward.

The rescind is now copyrighted.

(c) Copyrighted Anonymous Coward. All rights reserved.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

Do you think a credit agency would really have a problem getting around your dumb law? Another search engine? A proxy? Heck: it's a big business, they can write their own damn spider that simply looks for financial personal info on the web.

So if the problem really bothers you, you pass a law: "credit agencies can't keep records past 10 years"

That's actually effective.

Not this bulshit "the info is still there but you have to use a proxy or another search engine to find it." You really think someone committed to finding out this info about you won't make the extra 20 seconds of effort involved?

A dirtbag employer who is spending 5 minutes looking for dirt on potential employees won't think to use a proxy to find out the dirt he knows is out there? Really? You think using a proxy is as hard as going for microfiche in a library? Really?

Your "solution" is a pathetic band aid to make a few airheads feel good about your concern in a shallow way and with zero thought, without actually solving the actual fucking problem in a meaningful way.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[Martin Blank]

It wasn't that long ago that celebrities were blamed for making the sex tapes in the first place. That seems to be changing now, and for the better.

This will expand as people look around and see that we have foibles. Some people are still going to be jerks about it by not hiring someone because there's a picture of them from 20 years ago holding a joint or by hiring someone because they found the nudies posted a couple of years back and want the chance at seeing it for themselves. But past drug use isn't going to be nearly as much of a deal-killer as it is now, and even current drug use (at least for marijuana) is probably going to subside as a major concern as long as someone isn't high while on the job.

There will still be reasons people don't get hired for things that end up online. Posing while hanging out with the local Klansmen, for example, is going to make someone wary about hiring them for fear of having to deal with racism in the workplace. But being caught toking, flashing a nipple, or even engaging in sexual activities isn't going to be as important.

Re:Because job outfit only look for links in googl

[circletimessquare]

You aren't fighting the evil government or evil gossipmongers.

You're fighting the basic facts of how information works.

Europe has produced many great literary works. Such as Cervantes' Don Quixote jousting at windmills. Same absurd effort at containing information that is public. You're an absurd character fighting reality in the name of a dead era and losing.

I mean I'm sad I am going to die someday and I think it's unfair. Should I pass a law against dying and that solves the problem? Same thing with this moronic European delinking law: it doesn't work and you're just fighting the inevitable.