Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Surgeon Wins Landmark 'Right To Be Forgotten' Case (theguardian.com)
AmiMoJo shares a report from The Guardian: A Dutch surgeon formally disciplined for her medical negligence has won a legal action to remove Google search results about her case in a landmark "right to be forgotten" ruling. The doctor's registration on the register of healthcare professionals was initially suspended by a disciplinary panel because of her postoperative care of a patient. After an appeal, this was changed to a conditional suspension under which she was allowed to continue to practice. But the first results after entering the doctor's name in Google continued to be links to a website containing an unofficial blacklist, which it was claimed amounted to "digital pillory." It was heard that potential patients had found the blacklist on Google and discussed the case on a web forum. The surgeon's lawyer, Willem van Lynden, said the ruling was groundbreaking in ensuring doctors would no longer be judged by Google on their fitness to practice. "Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said.
So Yelp is allowed to keep going but medical professionals who impact lives instead of serving food are allowed to "be forgotten?"
Even if Google complies, it is doubtful that DDG or any of the other search engines will do so.
This space unintentionally left blank.
You know what would be a better resolution? If a search for your name points to the conviction of your prosecutor for misconduct. There's virtually no actual punishment of prosecutors ever for anything. Being accused and cleared is one thing. Knowing that the whole "well, we all know he was probably guilty but they couldn't prove it" stems precisely because prosecutors are allowed such zealous overreach without consequence is what's truly sickening.
"When the own the information, they can bend it all they want" - John Mayer, "Waiting on the world to change"
Someone took ownership of this information certainly.
IMO, patients ought to know about professional achievements or sanctions. Just like I wanna know a potential hire's criminal record. Because it directly impacts me.
The blacklist lists a 2-year suspension, with an update wayyyyy down the page indicating that the suspension was reduced, as noted in the OP. And you really have to read into the text to find this out.
This comment stood out in the legal proceedings:
"The Central Disciplinary Court has declared a number of complaints components to be (partially) unfounded and has imposed on the plastic surgeon the lower measure of conditional suspension for a period of 4 months with a probationary period of 2 years."
So it seems that some of the original 9 complaints are unfounded, and this is a case of he said/she said, with a dispute of what actually happened.
If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?
I note that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) complained that doing an image search of him came up with a photoshopped image of his head on a Nazi uniform in the top row. (source) Scott complained to Google and got no response, and only after asking his followers complain did the image get *somewhat* downranked. It's still there in the first page of image results.
He points out that the image came from a twitter account with 15 followers:
“Now, these are real pictures that people have ‘memed up’ on Twitter and somewhere else, but here’s the thing, if you click through to those pictures they are the least, smallest, most minor mention of me compared to everything I’ve been doing for years. So, I’m asking myself, and I’m gonna ask you as well, do you think given that – so one of these clicks through, one of the pictures of me wearing a photoshopped Nazi uniform, if you click through it goes to a fake Twitter account that’s pretending to be me that has only 15 followers.”
Adams asked: “Do you think that a fake Twitter account that has only 15 followers would have enough followers that Google’s algorithm would pick that? Of all the pictures there are of me, there are a lot of pictures of me in the public domain, in articles. I was probably in 25 major articles last year alone, and this one little 15 user fake Twitter account is the fourth image that comes up?”
It seems perfectly reasonable that people should start pushing back against Google's search manipulation, and the "right to be forgotten" seems to be a good first step.
there are examples where people have been acquitted but still appear as murderers/rapist etc. in old articles and ofc in google results.
"right to be forgotten" is shit, a duty and obligation to be correct should be there.
a general right to be forgotten just makes it possible to get away with murder depending on your personal ressources.