EU backs right to be forgotten
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
DonkeyApple said:
There are two different elements at play here.
If the photograph was taken without your permission then there are already laws to have it removed by the likes of Google. It is just that they chose to ignore the law. Max Mosely for example, had to force them in the courts to abide by existing laws.
What this latest ruling is about is removing information that is actually part of the public record. In other words it is something all together new and with far reaching ramifications.
There are two arguments, if someone has paid for their crime then society sees the debt as paid and the person should be able to move on with their life. Secondly, what they did is public record, as in public and forms part of human history.
The obvious answer to this is that someone who wants to expunge or counter the negative information of their past could easily do so by dedicating their life to doing good and ensuring that these positive acts are what are found first when they are Googled.
We shouldn't be deleting public information and individuals have other tools to ensure a negative act in their past isn't the only data that is shown about them. It is their choice.
Ok so what is "history" beyond what time frame is ok?If the photograph was taken without your permission then there are already laws to have it removed by the likes of Google. It is just that they chose to ignore the law. Max Mosely for example, had to force them in the courts to abide by existing laws.
What this latest ruling is about is removing information that is actually part of the public record. In other words it is something all together new and with far reaching ramifications.
There are two arguments, if someone has paid for their crime then society sees the debt as paid and the person should be able to move on with their life. Secondly, what they did is public record, as in public and forms part of human history.
The obvious answer to this is that someone who wants to expunge or counter the negative information of their past could easily do so by dedicating their life to doing good and ensuring that these positive acts are what are found first when they are Googled.
We shouldn't be deleting public information and individuals have other tools to ensure a negative act in their past isn't the only data that is shown about them. It is their choice.
What about crimes say that 20 years ago Mr X assaulted a child then history wiped and goes for a job in Primary school etc? What crimes are ok to be forgotten and which are not?
Its an interesting problem
You could equally imagine that a 16 yr old sleeping with a 15 yr old is a sex offender. Should that person have that stigma following them through adult life?
Like with many things there are cases when we as 'society' would logically say that it should be deleted and other cases when it shouldn't. The problem lies in deciding which binary set of rules are best for us all.
Who knows. After only a few hours of thinking about it my current view is that public records should remain available and shouldn't be masked. But then, these things worked ok in a world before Google.
Magog said:
ILoveMondeo said:
Of course, if you google his name now you get several hundred articles from all over the globe about his court case with google, and mentioning his repossed home!
I think this may be a little counter productive !
The famous Streisand EffectI think this may be a little counter productive !
I learned something today!
Douglas Carswell has an interesting take on this. Worth a read.
Aren't they going after the wrong company?
All Google does is search existing sites and make their content available for the person who is searching. If you don't want Google to show something then take it down from the original site. Google does cache sites but that is not the main issue as if you don't contact the original site then it will still be searched anyway.
All Google does is search existing sites and make their content available for the person who is searching. If you don't want Google to show something then take it down from the original site. Google does cache sites but that is not the main issue as if you don't contact the original site then it will still be searched anyway.
Einion Yrth said:
Douglas Carswell has an interesting take on this. Worth a read.
It is. It's slightly propagandist and this para is definitely untrue and Doug knows this: 'We are all familiar with the story of the printing press. While the elites in Ming China and the Ottoman Empire restricted its use, the same thing could not happen in Europe. With no central political authority, there was no Euro officialdom to inhibit the application of the new technology.'
The reason why the printing press rapidly appeared in every city in Europe in the 15c is directly because of Europe's central ruling body, the Catholic Church.
The rapid rise and spread of the printing machine was the direct result if religious propaganda and the fight against Lutherism. The Catholics used the press to raise money and to impress their control over the people and the Lutherians used it to promote their religion to the masses.
Rapid adoption was totally as a result of the rising Protestant doctrine and the fight against the Pope.
So Doug is being a little cheeky with his subtle associations of the EU to Islamic and Communist rule.
Its started...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27423527
Do google really have to pander to this? They dont even hold the information! Are yahoo etc etc similarly advised that they have to comply with this? There are loads of search engines about.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27423527
Do google really have to pander to this? They dont even hold the information! Are yahoo etc etc similarly advised that they have to comply with this? There are loads of search engines about.
vescaegg said:
I'm not entirely convinced that they can, reliably, do as asked.BBC blog by Robert Peston has been taken off Google too
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28130581
"My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made." It's O'Neal who wants to be forgotten so it's a bit worrying that people are hiding big errors like this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28130581
"My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made." It's O'Neal who wants to be forgotten so it's a bit worrying that people are hiding big errors like this.
One of londons top gangsters is also making use of this new law, if you search on him you get the following at the bottom of the results:
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
It'd be interesting to know what's been removed considering he's been in the spotlight for the last four years
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
It'd be interesting to know what's been removed considering he's been in the spotlight for the last four years
Interesting to see the type of links which are being removed.
Google removes 12 BBC News links in 'right to be forgotten'
Google removes 12 BBC News links in 'right to be forgotten'
Oakey said:
One of londons top gangsters is also making use of this new law, if you search on him you get the following at the bottom of the results:
"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
It'd be interesting to know what's been removed considering he's been in the spotlight for the last four years
Just use www.google.com not www.google.co.uk"Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. Learn more"
It'd be interesting to know what's been removed considering he's been in the spotlight for the last four years
For example if you google Alex Fiallos ( https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Alex+Fiallos ) Google tells you "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe".
However on google.com ( https://www.google.com/search?q=Alex+Fiallos ) you see the story about him being done for drink driving and the story about him trying to get his name removed...
"Google is under fresh pressure to expand the "right to be forgotten" to its international .com search tool.
A panel of EU data protection watchdogs said the move was necessary to prevent the law from being circumvented.
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
The panel said it would advise member states' data protection agencies of its view in new guidelines."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30212927
A panel of EU data protection watchdogs said the move was necessary to prevent the law from being circumvented.
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
The panel said it would advise member states' data protection agencies of its view in new guidelines."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30212927
BlackLabel said:
"Google is under fresh pressure to expand the "right to be forgotten" to its international .com search tool.
A panel of EU data protection watchdogs said the move was necessary to prevent the law from being circumvented.
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
The panel said it would advise member states' data protection agencies of its view in new guidelines."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30212927
A panel of EU data protection watchdogs said the move was necessary to prevent the law from being circumvented.
Google currently de-lists results that appear in the European versions of its search engines, but not the international one.
The panel said it would advise member states' data protection agencies of its view in new guidelines."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30212927
The EU really are morons.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff