Wikipedia Pages Censored In European Search Results

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It would seem that the "right to be forgotten" extends to Wikipedia content as well.

Last week, the Wikimedia Foundation began receiving notices that certain links to Wikipedia content would no longer appear in search results served to people in Europe. This is the result of a recent court decision, Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González, that granted individuals the ability to request that search engines “de-index” content about them under the so-called “right to be forgotten” doctrine.
Click to expand...
 
Although this is an unfortunate (and predictable) side effect of the new law, we are only talking about 0.015% of the removed links (according to the article)
 
CacaSapo said:
This is where I act surprised. Just wait until this gains momentum.
Click to expand...

I agree. Most people don't even know about the law. My prediction is that pedophiles will be requesting that their court cases be removed from online newspaper websites next so they can't be tracked as easily by the public.
 
VladDracule said:
Amazing you can come to this conclusion without any detail on the article or why the request was made.
Click to expand...
Why is one needed? They have no right to censor the internet, regardless of how emberassing WW2 was for Hitler. It happened. Thid parties have a right to put facts on a wiki. This is pure unadulterated bullshit.
 
The only way to make this law close to viable is to make it a requirement for a standardized framework for *requesting* to be forgotten and let companies make the decision to remove something or not. If a company were to refuse the request because you're a shitty former CEO deposed for embezzlement and insider trading or maybe you're a convicted pedo, then fuck you, it's viable information to link to and convictions are a matter of public record anyway.

If you're an average Joe that doesn't want his drunken pants-peeing picture showing up at the top of a Google Image search or the victim of revenge porn (situations for which this was actually created) that's a perfectly viable request for Google to comply with and any reasonable people in charge of such decisions should have no problems respecting that. If not, then you're still able to bring up a suit, either way. Any company/site that regularly refuses reasonable requests will only set themselves up for a class-action suit, which, unless you're Google, could easily end you.

The point being, no black-and-white law will ever function correctly because there is never a purely black-and-white case. Everything is up to interpretation and when given the chance, most people given such a problem will make reasonable decisions... well, as long as they aren't a politician or a CEO.

Whew... I nearly sounded like an optimist there, had to tack on the cynical politician/CEO bit.
 
Ducman69 said:
Why is one needed? They have no right to censor the internet, regardless of how emberassing WW2 was for Hitler. It happened. Thid parties have a right to put facts on a wiki. This is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Click to expand...

Again until you know ANY detail about what was in the wikipedia article you cant claim that. What if the wikipedia article was inaccurate and the change process wasn't working for the individual whom it was about. Its a damn good thing you dont work in a legal department
 
This is just removal of the links (not the actual data, report, etc) ... depending on how Wikipedia's own internal search works then it could still find the person ... if the wikipedia search uses Google then they are much much harder to find though
 
Can it be done for relatives? Imagine all those related to war criminals, could have all that nasty business removed from history. WWII was more than 8 years ago, lets just forget it all.
 
VladDracule said:
Amazing you can come to this conclusion without any detail on the article or why the request was made.
Click to expand...

"that granted individuals the ability to request that search engines “de-index” content about them under the so-called “right to be forgotten” doctrine.[1]"

This seems like BS to me, but if you're okay with people being de indexed from search engines, whatever. But I actually did read the article.
 
PCunicorn said:
"that granted individuals the ability to request that search engines “de-index” content about them under the so-called “right to be forgotten” doctrine.[1]"

This seems like BS to me, but if you're okay with people being de indexed from search engines, whatever. But I actually did read the article.
Click to expand...

So did i, and you arent even replying to what I said. Without knowing what the content of the Wikipedia article you can in no one infer that they had no right to make the request
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top