Guest Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 http://www.webpronew...too-far-2014-07 "The right to be forgotten rule" In May, the Court of of Justice of the European Union ruled that Google and other search engines must take requests from people for search results to be removed. Google has vocally opposed this for a long time, considering it a form of censorship, but ultimately, its hands became tied, and the process is now in effect in the EU. Predictably the results are already controversial, as the press is being censored. Google was already getting thousands of requests before it even had a request tool. Once the tool became available, it got over 12,000 removal request in the first day alone. From there it continued to average about 10,000 per day. Last week, Google started actually removing results. It now includes a general statement on many search results pages in the EU, including those that didn’t necessarily bring up results related to requests. It says: Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe. This could quickly get out of hand as more and more requests are submitted. In fact, some would say it’s already gotten out of hand. High profile publishers including the BBC, The Guardian, and The Daily Mail are seeing their content removed from search results. BBC economics editor Robert Peston writes about a post of his that was removed from searches involving former Merrill Lynch boss Stan O’Neal. The post, as he says, deals with how O’Neal was forced out after the bank suffered big losses on “reckless investmentsâ€. “Most people would argue that it is highly relevant for the track record, good or bad, of a business leader to remain on the public record – especially someone widely seen as having played an important role in the worst financial crisis in living memory (Merrill went to the brink of collapse the following year, and was rescued by Bank of America),†says Peston. “So there is an argument that in removing the blog, Google is confirming the fears of many in the industry that the “right to be forgotten†will be abused to curb freedom of expression and to suppress legitimate journalism that is in the public interest.†The Guardian was notified of six removed articles including three about retired Scottish Premier League referee Dougie McDonald, who was reportedly found to have lied about his reasons for granting a penalty. Also included was another was about French office workers making post-it-art, and one about a solicitor facing a fraud trial. As The Guardian’s James Ball notes, the publication wasn’t given any reason for the articles’ deletion. The Daily Mail says it had a story about the Merrill Lynch banker and one about the referee were removed from search results as well. Now, stories about Google removing results about these people are scattered throughout the results for searches on their names, pretty much as expected. Like John Oliver said in his brilliant segment about the Court’s ruling, and the particular case it was based on, “The only thing I know about him is the only thing he didn’t want me to know.†According to Peston, Google has hired “an army of para legal†to process “right to be forgotten†requests, and had already received 50,000 requests for articles to be removed from European searches by the time he posted his article. Google doesn’t have to comply with all requests, and can choose to fight them in court if it wants. Removing results and issuing a blanket disclaimer is likely to be a more cost effective solution for the company, however. With its disclaimer, and explanation of why results have been removed, it can still look like the good guy in all of this, and in reality in this particular case, Google is the good guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 When Google had their "camera car" filming the streets and houses in Germany, the Germans screamed and Google was forced to remove houses of people that did not want to be part of that Google project, so no surprise here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted July 7, 2014 Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 Hi, Tough call this. I can see valid points on both sides. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kung Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Perhaps newspaper archives and museum artifacts should be given a once over, too. It just wouldn't be right to cast Hector or Hannibal in an unfavorable light. Especially as they're no longer around to defend themselves. And this nonsense regarding maintaining a rap sheet on current criminals. Bringing up a criminal's past transgressions is clearly unfair to the criminal. Yes, purge all public records about anybody. Especially politicians' records. It's just not fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
botfly Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Big brother is watching you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kung Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 Public spaces are public. What we do there has no bearing on privacy. If some minx wants to strip in front of an open window in her private residence as I ride my bicycle to school on the public road, it's not a private affair. It's within the public domain. Just my opinion of course. This is a good, debatable topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 European countries have rehabilitation of offenders laws which prevent past crimes from being used against a person on job interviews etc. Why should a man who stole candy as a 9 year old be prevented from getting a job when he is aged 50? The problem with search engines is that they never forget, making forgiveness impossible. Note that the European Court ruling only applies to search engines. It does not apply to news websites so there is no grounds for complaining that the Daily Mail or the BBC have been censored. The stories are still available at the original source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baa99 Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 ... but many websites use google as their website search option! Tossing out such a bogus strawman only shows how weak the case is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 The court's ruling is not unreasonable, it strikes a balance between a persons right to know and another persons right to have some information forgotten. It only seems unreasonable because Google is taking down every thing requested in order to show its displeasure at the ruling. Fortunately some information is reappearing so I guess they are getting over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted July 8, 2014 Report Share Posted July 8, 2014 The right to be forgotten is limited to being forgotten by EU citizens. People outside the EU can still find information on Europeans. Those living outside the EU should quit their whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now