HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
It looks as though Google has started processing requests from individuals asking for search results to be removed.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google Starts Removing Search Results Under 'Right To Be Forgotten'
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
What happened in Germany during the 40's?
Can't seem to find it.
/s
Can't seem to find it.
/s
D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
What about my "right to be remembered" if something involving myself exists at one of those links? Traces of my early internet existence persist going back to 1997.
I don't get why you guys react so much. First, this is just to remove search results based on an individual's name. So holocaust will still exist, even if Hitler comes back from his grave to remove all search results with his name.
Secondly, the internet is NOT the only source of information the planet has.
Third, removing a search result from google search does not delete the actually content. Google is NOT the internet. I surfed the web before Google. And I suspect I might outlive Google.
Secondly, the internet is NOT the only source of information the planet has.
Third, removing a search result from google search does not delete the actually content. Google is NOT the internet. I surfed the web before Google. And I suspect I might outlive Google.
I'm all for privacy, but yeah, this is going a bit too far. So can I go to a library that has old newspapers and ask that anything with my name be removed?
If you want to be truly "forgotten" on the web wouldn't it be a lot easier to change your name and just abandon the old one altogether? No matter what the EU rulings say you'll never be able to get rid of everything. People will still be able to find your information, particularly if you're on social media sharing it all anyway.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
If this were just an ability to remove stuff that is in error I would agree but I am not a fan of retroactive censorship ... we have all done things we would like to forget (or have forgotten) but that is why people generally try to behave (they realize that the activities one performs have consequences ... sometimes very long lasting ones). One person's "right" to privacy does not trump another person's (or organization's) right to free speech. Just another sign of the decline of the EU in the legal arena
The only way to find anything on the internet for the most part is through a search engine, otherwise it doesn't really even exist to the public. This law doesn't only affect Google.
Yeah people. Stop over reacting. Even if Google removes those links, we still have Bing.
I had to Google what Bing is.
GaryJohnson
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,053
That's exactly what this is actually. In order to get Google to remove a search result you have to explain why it is:
Which "freedom of speech" are you referring to?
Also, congratulations on invoking Godwin's Law in the 2nd post.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
I think the bar should be higher than that ... "irrelevant" is certainly subjective (what I consider irrelevant someone else might consider very relevant), "outdated" would need to have very rigid standards (if one committed a crime 20 years previously that might still be very relevant), "inappropriate" is another highly subjective classification
We'll just have to see how it works in practice. To me an error is exactly that (there are two people with the same name and this link is about the other person, someone posted information that was later refuted, etc).
S
shade91
Guest
I welcome this law and see nothing wrong with it. It's to censor outdated and incorrect information so Hitler would have a major problem there. Corporations have no such constitutional rights and shouldn't be treated as people to begin with.
I heard nothing about censoring incorrect information, and we already have libel laws. And who is going to be judge and jury for millions of requests to remove "outdated" information?
Oh, the person you are hiring as a babysitter was in the news because he raped a child? Pfft, that was 15 years ago, ancient history!
No such thing as "outdated", and anyone that wants information sorted by date can easily do so on the search engine results.
Just because something is incorrect doesn't mean it's libel. The most glaring example for that is a name associated with a phone number at an old employer. There are hundreds of perfectly legit use cases for any one of your babysitter rape claims.
What if I you could block the ties of a proposed new FCC chair to the telco industry? Public outcry that could have happened may never happen. Being able to hide the history and ties of politicians and their associates is a horrible tool that will be used eventually.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
What is the bar on "outdated" though? Right now Google is having to make this call. If a person embezzled money from a company 20 years ago is that still relevant to your potential employer? If a person was a convicted pedophile but it was 30 years ago is that relevant or outdated? If I commited genocide 50 years ago is it still relevant? These may be extreme examples but they raise valid questions on how to draw the line on valid competing interests (a person's desire to remove information they don't like and society's or an employer's right to have information that helps them gauge the risk a person poses to them). Europe likes to pass laws like this (or in this case make a judicial ruling) that leaves these questions open (which ultimately benefits no one) ... except for all the new businesses that can now collect money to submit requests to the search companies on your behalf and all the lawyers and researchers that will be needed by the search engine companies to verify each request.
If only all those questions could have been answered before there was the Internet the World would have been a much better place.
MrCaffeineX
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,604
What is the bar on "outdated" though? Right now Google is having to make this call. If a person embezzled money from a company 20 years ago is that still relevant to your potential employer? If a person was a convicted pedophile but it was 30 years ago is that relevant or outdated? If I commited genocide 50 years ago is it still relevant? These may be extreme examples but they raise valid questions on how to draw the line on valid competing interests (a person's desire to remove information they don't like and society's or an employer's right to have information that helps them gauge the risk a person poses to them). Europe likes to pass laws like this (or in this case make a judicial ruling) that leaves these questions open (which ultimately benefits no one) ... except for all the new businesses that can now collect money to submit requests to the search companies on your behalf and all the lawyers and researchers that will be needed by the search engine companies to verify each request.
Considering they still charge people in their 90s with war crimes from WWII, I don't know that any length of time is long enough depending on the circumstances. Not that I necessarily agree, but then again, I'm not in the position to make such decisions.
This law seems incredibly difficult to enforce. I guess I can understand it from the technical standpoint that if I willfully delete my Facebook account, Facebook should remove all of that content, which in turn will remove it from being returned by search engines, but where is the line drawn? Do all of my Facebook friends now have to lose access to content in their accounts that linked to mine for fear of a search engine result popping up something about me on their page(s)? This just seems to add way to many questions and little to no practical benefit...
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
The main problem with this law is that it puts the burden on Google to verify the request. The burden should be on the requester to provide legally traceable information supporting the removal. Although this would benefit the third parties who want to turn this into a business, this would remove the legal burden from Google (or other search engines) to validate the requests before they execute them. What will happen down the road when someone hires a person who deleted key information through this process and then they sue Google for the deletion.
At least Google is thumbing their nose at the law in one way, they are only deleting the results from the European search engine. If you do the searches through the American or other search engines the results may still appear.
At least Google is thumbing their nose at the law in one way, they are only deleting the results from the European search engine. If you do the searches through the American or other search engines the results may still appear.
S
shade91
Guest
Sanctimony. Learn the difference between libel and incorrect information.
The requestor, duh.
Learn the difference between outdated and history. There is a distinct one there. Need a dictionary?
See my prior comment.
Well let's be honest, you haven't actually read the law or understand the scope of it.
kbrickley
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 13, 2012
- Messages
- 7,514
My understanding is that this isn't a law at all but is a judicial ruling in a court case ( http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/index_en.htm ) ... doesn't make it any less binding but that is what is driving much of the confusion concerning it ... there is no clear guideline on what can and should be removed ... it is left to the discretion of the search engine. If they are serious about this then they should provide a legal entity who could review these requests and submit the approved ones to Google and the other search engines. Right now Google has to review the request and is forced to judge whether the request violates the public's need to know or is truly irrelevant. It shouldn't be up to either the requestor or the search engine to make that determination. There should be a neutral 3rd party to assess that (if they are serious about doing it right and objectively).
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
So there is a Constitutional Right to defame other people? I did not know this. So when I say John Boehner is a cock-sucking child-molester, that is my 1st amendment right?
Yeah, well good luck with all this, maybe you will have better luck than trying to fix errors in your record at the Credit Reporting Agencies. At least Google doesn't change it's mailing address every 5 weeks to avoid anyone being able to actually LEGALLY contact them. They save so much money that way not having to do anything.
Yeah, well good luck with all this, maybe you will have better luck than trying to fix errors in your record at the Credit Reporting Agencies. At least Google doesn't change it's mailing address every 5 weeks to avoid anyone being able to actually LEGALLY contact them. They save so much money that way not having to do anything.
Yes, it id. Especially politicians.So there is a Constitutional Right to defame other people? I did not know this. So when I say John Boehner is a cock-sucking child-molester, that is my 1st amendment right?
What if he actually was, wouldn't you like the ability to tell people?