Slashdot Mirror
Google Seeks To Limit 'Right To Be Forgotten' By Claiming It's Journalistic (cjr.org)
"In the first 'right to be forgotten' case to reach England's High Court, two men are fighting to keep their past crimes out of Google's search results, and the tech giant is fighting back by claiming it's 'journalistic.'" Chava Gourarie reports via Columbia Journalism Review: The case, which is actually two nearly identical cases, involves two businessmen who were both convicted of white-collar crimes in the '90s, and requested that Google delist several URLs referencing their convictions, including news articles. When Google denied their requests, they sued under a 2014 European Union ruling which established the right of individuals to have information delisted from search indexes under certain conditions. In its defense, Google has argued that it should be protected under an exception for journalism because it provides access to journalistic content. Even as a legal sleight of hand, the argument is quite a departure from Google's customary efforts to present itself as a disinterested arbiter of information, a position that has become more untenable with time.
Gareth Corfield, a reporter for The Register who covered the cases from the courtroom, said it's disingenuous of Google to put on the mantle of journalism only when it suits them. "They've gone through great lengths to say they don't make any editorial judgement in processing results," Corfield said, but "it now wants you to believe it is on a par with journalism." As the first case to test the "right to be forgotten" in England's High Court, its outcome will likely set some ground rules in the roiling debate between personal privacy and freedom of expression on the internet. Google's sudden identification with journalism may be a legal gambit, but it could have far-reaching effects across the landscape of data protection laws.
Gareth Corfield, a reporter for The Register who covered the cases from the courtroom, said it's disingenuous of Google to put on the mantle of journalism only when it suits them. "They've gone through great lengths to say they don't make any editorial judgement in processing results," Corfield said, but "it now wants you to believe it is on a par with journalism." As the first case to test the "right to be forgotten" in England's High Court, its outcome will likely set some ground rules in the roiling debate between personal privacy and freedom of expression on the internet. Google's sudden identification with journalism may be a legal gambit, but it could have far-reaching effects across the landscape of data protection laws.
Let's show them the Streisand effect!
To be what now?
Pirates have more standing with Google then these guys. Say what you want bu there is something seriously wrong with this.
Google has no problem removing links. In this case it's pure virtue signaling extortion as usual by Google.
Gareth Corfield, a reporter for The Register who covered the cases from the courtroom, said it's disingenuous of Google to put on the mantle of journalism only when it suits them.
I guess Corfield never heard of "Pleading the Alternative".
Hint: This is a legal proceeding. "Disingenuosity" has nothing to do with it.
Once the billyclubs, handcuffs, writs, bailiffs, and judges are in play It's all about applying the law and interpretations of it in an internally consistent manner that makes you fit into a "within the law" category - no matter how round the hole and square the peg.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Google is right and there is nothing disingenuous about it. The notion that you can force news articles about your crimes to be removed from a search engine is a direct attack on journalism. The purpose of the exception for journalism was to prevent exactly that kind of "forgetting". The fact that Google claims it doesn't make editorial judgments is irrelevant.
Exists primarily because of Google.
It should be amended with fines of $1M per day.
Nope. He will be pardened by President Arpaio.
The thing I really don't like about "The right to be forgotten" is that it potentially serves to erase history that would be really valuable or informative many years hence. I kind of feel like "Right to be Forgotten" should be paired with some kind of time-sealed government run vault (hey, I'm rolling my own eyes here, just can't think of a better way to express this idea), into which all of the "forgotten" data would go and be kept more permanently until tit did not matter what was inside.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I hate whenever a term is considered a "right". You right to be forgotten has to be balanced with my right to know what criminal shit you did. And if you were convicted of a crime you better have a very good reason why your right is more important than mine. Excluding criminal acts this whole exercise of being forgotten sickens me. We all do stupid things and say even worse, at least those of us who have ever actually done something in our lives. Most people who want to punish people for what they find online are punishing them for it being public not for what they have done. I honestly don't care if there happen to be pictures of my girlfriend naked on the internet, or something a coworker has posted in a comment section and later regretted.
However, by putting so much emphasis on deleting these things we add to the shame of the original act. Everyone should say what you are thinking, post a picture of yourself naked, then when it is so common then no one will actually care. If you want my opinion on something, ask me and have a civilized conversation about it.
+1.
Will vote for Joe.
As the first case to test the "right to be forgotten" in England's High Court
There is no such institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
A vote for Joe is a vote for congestive heart failure. A vote for Trump is just a retard's attempt at treason.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-bardella-trey-gowdy_us_5ac79ba5e4b0337ad1e7a344
Trey Gowdy’s Job Is Important. Why Isn’t He Doing It?
There is a huge difference between personal privacy, which is a right, and public discourse. I didn't think I could respect this company any less, but there you go. Pathetic. If data protection ever becomes a reality, Google and similar companies would collapse overnight. Let it be sooner than later.
Joe Arpaio, Special Counsel for the investigation of the legitimacy of the Obama presidency.
To assert the "right to be forgotten" is to assert power over other people's memories. There is no such thing — and there should not be.
If you insist on creating one — for the "evil KKKorporations" — one day your ex will have the power to insist, your memories of the time together be wiped out. It is already possible.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"It almost appoints itself, I reckon!" -Republican child molester running for office
Journalistic, but you're a search engine, for f***s sake. Get the originals to delete their items, Mister Chicken-and Egg.
That would be Bill Clinton, the model democrat.
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
It should be noted that the position of not making any editorial judgement is not incompatible with a desire to protect journalism. Using the metaphor of a book store, Google is acting like a book store, who does not make any editorial judgement on the books being sold. However, if the book store is disallowed to sell certain books, then the journalism produced by the authors of these books are certainly harmed, since it would be impossible to access these books via this book store.
IMHO, Each website could argue that, but not Google.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Aaaaactually? Monica Lewinski was many things but not underage as your Republican inbreeding prefers. "I likes em yawng cuzz they caint faight so gud, ahehp." -GOP ALLOWED CHILD RAPIST
Once the billyclubs, handcuffs, writs, bailiffs, and judges are in play It's all about applying the law and interpretations of it in an internally consistent manner that makes you fit into a "within the law" category - no matter how round the hole and square the peg.
If they are claiming protection when providing journalistic content, then for the sake of the consistency shouldn't they also be open to libel charges when they provide defamatory content?
The thing is in EU we are big on rehabilitation, and having your past crime come splat right into a new hiring would fly in the face of rehabilitation. That journalistic exception (there are other one for public figure and politician which have no right to be forgotten if i recall correctly and there are some crime which are excluded) means that you have a right to be forgotten from SEARCH ENGINE, but not from journal. e.g. CNN report you stole a dildo, then google link it. You do your time and want to work in a dildo factory, you invoke the right to be forgotten and have the link in google removed, but CNN is NOT affected and can still display the article if you search in cnn.com , or if you have the direct link. Google is claiming they are "journal" more or less for the search engine which fly in the face of that law, and of all precedent on what is considered journalism by court. I hope they get stamped out. There is a good reason the right to be forgotten was required : without it, rehabilitation is nigh impossible as google do not forget anything. So unless you were called joe smith, in all practicality rehabilitation cannot work if googling your name list your past crime. And before somebody invoke some excuse to need to be informed bullshit : in past society as far as 1990 (LOL) you HAD that right to be forgotten de facto as baring somebody doing a research on microfiche there was no easy way to look up for news like that, and that'S how rehabilitation can only work. Otherwise if you do anything, it get hanged around your neck like a dead albatross and makes not only rehabilitation impossible and thus far far more probable for you to recommit (compare recommit crime in Sweden with US....) but that dead albatross almost certainly makes you a pariah for other part of society for the rest of your life.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Everything you do in public should be recorded forever, especially convictions of criminal behavior.
>See, that's the way our justice system works.
Shithole cuntry mate.
So what youre really saying is your'e all Nazis four generations back and lack proper shame over your ancestors' actions because its easier to forget. Got it. Thanks Nazi.
Youre here telling us all how great a society is that erases the record of the past.. whst did you do? Raep a goat?? You protest like a goatfucker. I bet thats it.. if only you hadnt been forgotten we'd know but as it is we'll just ALL assume the worst about you. Goatfucker.
Search engines are there to find journalistic content. Censoring them is the same as censoring the content because that's literally how the internet works! In this context, the author at the Reg is a moron arguing to have his own content become unsearchable at the whim of anyone he decides to write about. Google is correct to take the stance they should be protected under exemptions for journalism when the links requested to be delisted are news articles.
I don't like this lazy way of getting forgotten.
Ask the state to get your conviction stricken from the public records.
Get newspapers to respect your privacy by hiding newspaper articles about it.
Get those "forgotten" records hidden from spiders if you still want explicit searches to work.
THEN, go to Google to clean up what's left.
If the state believe in the "right to be forgotten" enough to handle the first steps, there should only be low ranking stuff left behind.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Read again about "the original article" (written by real journalists, not Google) still exists".
So why can't we discuss the article in public forum? This is just censorship, EU trying to do an endrun because they can't censor Fake CNN whose servers are in the US. Dude twoposts up was right
Rehabilitation isn't good enough reason to censor any mentions of the past. This will always be a thing that happened and any any censoring of it goes against the truth. No harm from having it available can come that can't be rectified by other laws already. If they're denied employment due to convictions that are not active anymore then they can sue for discrimination. If other people keep badgering them about their past crimes then they can sue for harassment. Rewriting the past is not needed. You can't build your life based on a lie of omission anyway. People will always find out eventually even if google doesn't index it.
Journalism is purposely seeking information, condensing it and reporting it in a way that is easier comprehended by the target audience. Indiscriminately and automatically scraping and saving all information you find is not.
It won't work anyway. the press is regulated, and expected to consider things like the public interest value vs. privacy. Unless Google starts doing that somehow or wants to be regulated that way they won't get far with this argument.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Google search is not a public forum. In fact, why not try to get it declared one? I for one would find it funny to watch Google crumble to dust under the weight of SEO junk they're no longer allowed to fiddle with.
So if someone asks me to direct them.to.an article I'm.supposed to decline? What's the difference between that and a business automating my reply on demand?
It won't work anyway. the press is regulated, and expected to consider things like the public interest value vs. privacy.
Explain Fox "News". Regulation of the press in America is a pathetic joke.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The thing is in EU we are big on rehabilitation, and having your past crime come splat right into a new hiring would fly in the face of rehabilitation.
So make it illegal for employers to research or use that information in hiring, done and done without trying to alter history. It's not a "right to be forgotten". It's a right to deprive other people of search engine utility. And it's historically revisionistic and an attempt on the part of the EU to rewrite history.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Google is just search engine, a tool for lazy journalists for the Internet age. Too lazy to get off their fat asses and do real journalistic work before the Internet existed.
...PUBLIC INFORMATION (i.e. court proceedings) shouldn't EVER have a "right to be forgotten"
F the EU
So make it illegal for employers to research or use that information in hiring, done and done without trying to alter history.
"We didn't hire him, true. Not because he's a convicted criminal, noooo! Don't be ridiculous, that would be illegal! We just didn't feel like he was a team player. Yes, that's definitely the reason."
In Britain, it is a matter of law that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, what we're really saying is that you're not competent to know what has merit by merit of bringing up Nazis rather than respecting other cultures, so you can bog off.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Again, you're not reading what was written. Nothing is being censored and search engines aren't journalists. That's all there is to it.
At this point, anyone who doesn't grasp the importance of privacy clearly works for Facebook or Cambridge Analytics.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You are not permitted to use the irrelevant in hiring decisions. And society is prohibited from inventing punishments outside of law or indefinite punishments of any kind. That's not revisionism, that's called decency.
It's also why recidivism in Europe is about a quarter that in the U.S.
Also, none of the historic record is changed. Unlike in America, where the south firmly believes slavery had nothing to do with the civil war and that the statues removed were from that era.
Americans should also start with home, where their President (after a cup of covfefe) is pressing for political opponents to be arrested and locked up without trial and for opposing news sources to be shut down as illegal lobbyists.
Get him impeached and THEN you get to talk about freedom of the press, and not a moment before.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Americans should also start with home, where their President (after a cup of covfefe) is pressing for political opponents to be arrested and locked up without trial and for opposing news sources to be shut down as illegal lobbyists.
Of course that's wrong, but the so-called right to be forgotten predates Trump's presidency. They're both wrong.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Isn't England leaving the European Union? Will Google be able to relist the search results after Brexit?
Where such a request exists, Google should replace the search results with a banner that says "These results from [specific URL address] are blocked due to legal requirements to hide the criminal activities of [complainant's name here] under EU law. Please look up the information in police records instead." That should satisfy everyone.
Excuse me, but what time period are you talking about. Before there was Google, there was Alta Vista. Before there was Alta Vista there was WebSpider. Before there was WebSpider there were lots of people rolling their own search engines. I think that .... it's been too long, but search engines didn't originate on Web, they predated it. I suppose if you go back before DNS you find a time without search engines... I remember a brief period where I kept an extensive list of entries in my hosts file, but saying "the internet existed just fine without search engines" is also saying it existed just fine with only a few hundred sites, possibly a few thousand. And it's true, if you scale things back that far, search engines are just a useful utility. (That hosts file quickly became a pain to maintain.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In a way it should. The request should be for the pages linked to to be delisted. Google is just being an index, it's not providing the story.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Or what? They got a Flashy Thingie? Fuck anybody and everybody that want to cripple our technology. I wish Google had the guts to simply ignore it, or better, circumvent it in a way to make it unenforceable... decentralized storage will help, in a torrent fashion, or like Yacy. But the fact is Google likes this kind of thing. Makes it harder for competition to enter the market. So let's all run our own crawlers, and our own DNS for that matter to help mitigate ISP/Government/Advertiser redirection. Ultimately we must eliminate the need for an ISP. Then all the tyrants can go the hell!
The right of being forgotten is erasing our History.
We have here someone that has been a candidate for Presidential runs, and that has been in the future, that has been a desertor and a traitor in our old colonial wars.
Most seriously yet, he has in the hands, metaphorically speaking the blood of many of his countrymen, due to be running a radio station that denounced to our enemies our positions.
He used the right from Google to be forgotten, and obliterated with that part of the History from our colonial wars from the Internet.
Are you ok with foreigners telling you what rights you have to get rid of on their say so? I seem to recall Americans getting upset and that's without the other side profiteering.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, the data is there, so there is no censorship.
This is just a bunch of busybodies interfering with the fundamental and ancient rights of Europeans on the grounds that making money is more important than a fundamental right.
Wonder where they stand when it comes to their own fundamental rights. Ahhhh. I see.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Are you ok with foreigners telling you what rights you have to get rid of on their say so? I seem to recall Americans getting upset and that's without the other side profiteering.
The right to free speech is the right to do something, or to stop someone else from stopping you from doing something. The right to be forgotten is the right to force someone else to do something. The two cannot be equated; they are wholly and completely different things.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is Europe.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When you are down to playing with words to make what you are doing legal. You know you are doing something shady.
Guess dont be evil just meant 'do not be Microsoft'.
Idiot, that's by design. The first amendment specifically says that freedom of the press will not be abridged. So guess what? There basically is no regulation, nor has there ever been much to that end, especially after the incorporation doctrine. The one and only exception is public broadcasts (and no, cable TV doesn't fall under that umbrella) and that, IMO, is going too far, though it's kind of difficult to say that it's unconstitutional since they are leasing spectrum from the FCC. But I still think that it should be unconstitutional anyways since the FCC has a monopoly, and it is a direct part of the federal government, which is what the first amendment has always applied to, even before incorporation. And who gives a fuck if Timberlake and Jackson flash a titty? Besides, sponsors don't like it when they break a common set of decency rules, which is why basic cable channels shy away from this, and the premium channels don't.
Vague terms like "public interest value" are exactly why the EU has no freedom of speech. There is plenty of language like that which governs free speech, and it's already being abused by allowing the police to interpret it however they'd like. This means nobody can really know what type of speech is banned, and the police can (and do) pick which type of speech they want to prosecute, all they have to do is relate it to any one of these vague terms. I'm sure you'll probably be thinking "but...fake news!" true, that is a problem, but if you start censoring rumors, then you become the Chinese government, who uses that as a justification to censor anything, no matter how true it is.
In the US, you've got protection from anything unless you're a broadcaster, or your speech fails the clear and present danger litmus test (i.e. credible threats of violence, conspiracy to murder, etc.) Nothing else will see you get prosecuted.
Since when did they get the chance to start their lives anew? Most places in the US you can no longer vote if you have a record.
Complete garbage. Those records are kept because we don't trust those people not to do it again. And the next time their previous record will be weighed up by the judge, irregardless if they served out their term for the previous crime.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The difference is you're not asking for a specific article, you're asking for all the dirt they have on $person. It's possible you're the kind of person that regularly types URLs into the Google Search bar though, I guess.
Like many in the mass media who censor, edit, or spin news for political reasons, Google will be able to do the same. Indeed they have already begin this crusade of censoring conservative and/or libertarian content that conflicts with their political viewpoints. This is absolutely necessary as the internet has been a major force in spreading the truth about the establishment, the US Intel agencies, both political parties, 911, and the media!!!!
I think Corfield is either misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting Google's argument in this case. Google is saying they're happy to remove links to forums (e.g.: slanderous posts) but they won't remove links to news articles because they form a public record.
Media organisations should be happy with that argument because it will continue to drive traffic to their ad-soaked pages.
And it is journalistic.
Facts should not be suppressed because they inconvenience or offend someone, nor because they cause someone unwanted attention or discomfort. BUT, of course, some people think they should have a history that is of limited scope.
This is a problem similar to that of court records in a digital age. Now that we have the technology to actually access those 'public' records, suddenly there are some efforts to limit that newly-realized access. Poo. No.
Similar problem in the US with people taking advantage of available information and technology to manufacture their own firearms, which are both unregistered and untraceable. This is fundamental to the right to possess firearms, for if you can't make it, you can be denied the opportunity to acquire it, and denied the right to posses it. And there you are.
'Right to be forgotten' belongs to the rememberers, not to the data. If we choose to remember, we do. Too bad you are ashamed or afraid of your history.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
No, the right to do and the right to be free are the same thing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)