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?"
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.
It sounds like Van Lynden doesn't know how the internet works. Google can't "take down" anything. All it can do is remove references from its search results. I would love to hear an explanation for the technical aspects of how this would be done. Are Google's algorithms really that good that they can "de-list" certain websites but only for very specific search terms? What happens when/if this doctor gets put on the naughty list again? Are they required to de-list the next blog that people decide to comment on? This is very interesting from both a "free speech" (and yes, I realize this isn't a US story) and from a technical perspective.
This is a really good example of why the "right to be forgotten" idea is a really bad idea. Aside from issues of free speech, in any reasonable context, patients should have a right to know what problems or potential issues a doctor they have has had. One doesn't even need an American style strong free speech norm to see that this should be unacceptable.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks they have a right to be forgotten, especially when other people have a right to know.
This is an exercise of the right to correct information, not of "the right to be forgotten". The claims are against websites that publish the incorrect information about the disciplinary action that is no longer valid. It is the same as a sentence which has been revoked is removed from your criminal record.
I found the case documents at the Dutch court website, but believe it or not they are all anonymized!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
OK, got it. All this Dutch is killing me! According to this Dutch website, the doctor's name is Rita Kappel and the black list in question is here.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
So Dr. Rita Kappel was initially disciplined and her right to practice was suspended because of her postoperative care of a patient - but then her disciplinary action was altered to allow her to continue to practice. However the overall disciplinary action remains intact and on her record.
Do I have those facts regarding Dr. Rita Kappel correct?
#DeleteChrome
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.
The story being, basically a weekend plastic surgeon that uses a rented theatre and cheap gig economy nurses in surgery, did a quick dirty, boobie deflation job. After sending the gig economy cheap surgery team home, who are too expensive and leaving the victim in the care of general nurse after the weekend surgeon wandered off counting the profits. Well the victim was not quite sealed up and was leaking, a lot, rather than put together a proper surgical team. The doctor sort of botched one up with the nurses available to get the victim done with as fast as possible, costing the surgeon money now and well, quite the awkward mess, all those amateurs in a room and after lots of bleeding and mess an hour and a half latter the patient sealed up.
Going in for surgery, go with a surgeon who works in a real hospital and where you will have doctors and nurses of all sorts on tap. Go to a weekend hacker that rents an surgery by the hour and brings on gig economy party time surgical 'er' specialists, and is looking to make as much profit as possible, as in spend as little as possible and push the gig economy workers out the surgery door as fast as possible.
When going in for surgery, ask which hospital and full time staff, don't go to the rental surgery and the gig economy workers, it's cheaper for a reason. That doctors special gig is https://www.drkappel.nl/ and https://www.drkappel.nl/, when it comes to inflato boobies she works the flip side, deflation. Runs a whole 'Institute' of medical practices web site (I'll bet it wants goggle search to remember that), when in reality a surgeon on the cheap, rented surgery and gig economy surgical staff the cheapest available, to maximise profits and good luck for the victims.
Most people going to a surgery would expect the doctor and the surgical team to know each other well and be practised working together so as not to make mistakes and during and post surgery, a lot of resources accessible for problems, not to be left in the lurch, bleeding out.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If there is a law explicitly stating that there is "a right to be forgotten", then that right exists.
Just in the same way as you have the right to own land.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
IMO, patients ought to know about professional achievements or sanctions.
So why bother having a medical registration system if you're going by court of public opinion?
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Look , TL;DR : you are basically a proponent of marking any people having been caught adulterous with a red brand on their forehead. This is exactly what you want. Before google and other search engine we all enjoyed a right to be forgotten, in other word a right to be able to correct errors, and become better. If you brand people forever , you effectively destroy their life. Maybe you are an american ? That would explain it, US society seem good on punitive action but not so much on rehabilitation, or prevention.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
“Rita Kappel from Zwolle”: https://translate.google.com/t...
If you'd read the link you provided you'd notice that the Louisiana "civil law" is akin to fruit juice with "at least 5% real fruit".
The starting paragraph would have done the trick.
Louisiana's criminal law largely rests on American common law.
Louisiana's administrative law is generally similar to the administrative law of the U.S. federal government and other U.S. states.
Louisiana's procedural law is generally in line with that of other U.S. states, which in turn is generally based on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Also, this:
One often-cited distinction is that while common law courts are bound by stare decisis and tend to rule based on precedents, judges in Louisiana rule based on their own interpretation of the law.[22] This distinction is not absolute, though. Civil law has its own respect for established precedent, the doctrine of jurisprudence constante. But the Louisiana Supreme Court notes the principal difference between the two legal doctrines: a single court decision can provide sufficient foundation for stare decisis, however, "a series of adjudicated cases, all in accord, form the basis for jurisprudence constante."[23] Moreover, Louisiana Courts of Appeals have explicitly noted that jurisprudence constante is merely a secondary source of law, which cannot be authoritative and does not rise to the level of stare decisis.[24]
I.e. In Louisiana they use of SOME aspects of civil law - but in a court which finds and treats common law as superior.
Basically, worst parts of both systems.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The fact that you agree that Scott Adams should be labeled a nazi, is symptomatic of this very problem.
At no point did I say he should be labeled a nazi. I said that he shouldn't be surprised that he was labeled one. If you defend Nazis anywhere beyond defending their constitutional right to free speech you should darn well expect to be considered to be one. Might not be fair but it's reality. Adams tried to defend WHAT they said when he should have stopped at defending their right to say it.
You completely diminish the true nature of how bad they were by throwing this label around over your political opposites.
If you fail to condemn Nazis and white supremacists then you de-facto are condoning them. There is no middle ground here and you are picking a side either way. Siding with Nazis isn't far removed from being one. Most conservatives/republicans clearly are NOT white supremacists but there are far too many who are. They are not "fine people" and trying to spin or nuance such statements is to support them. To defend the protesters beyond their constitutional rights is to side with them. Even the ACLU would (and has) defended their free speech rights but defending what they say is much different than defending their right to say it. Adams (and Trump) failed to recognize this difference.
You're making the association fallacy. Nazis breathe air just like you. Are you a Nazi too?
Last I checked Scott Adams is not interested in killing all Jews or invading Poland.
The proper remedy would've been for Scott Adams to ask Twitter to revoke the account, or at least get them to change the picture. You have a right to control how your own likeness is used. That twitter account was clearly violating it by using a photoshopped picture of him.
Google had nothing to do with it, and was in fact instrumental in helping him locate this violation of his personality rights. Unfortunately he then tried to shoot the messenger instead of tackling the root of the problem.
That's really the fundamental problem with the way this right to be forgotten is being implemented. Search engines like Google are merely the messenger. Forcing them to remove search results doesn't remove the bad information from the web. Unless you go after the source of the bad info and force them to fix it (or get the host to remove the site/account), you're just just trying to make the problem go away by sticking everyone's head in the sand.. Next up, we will solve world hunger by banning the press from reporting on it.