Google Loses Landmark “Right to Be Forgotten” Case

Discussion in '[H]ard|OCP Front Page News' started by Megalith, Apr 14, 2018.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,204
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    A businessman who was convicted 10 years ago of conspiring to intercept communications and spent six months in jail has managed to convince a UK court that Google should take down any web links that reference his past crime. Google argued that such information is in the public’s interest and should be made available.

    These include links to web pages published by a national newspaper and other media. Google refused their request and the men took the company to the high court. The decision in NT2’s favor could have implications for other convicted criminals and those who want embarrassing stories about them erased from the web.
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  2. wra18th

    wra18th [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,910
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Is NT2 Muslim?
     
    mynamehere and Master_shake_ like this.
  3. mord

    mord Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Reading the artical it comes down to the courts feel they have a right to decide what is reticent and may be of interest to the public. If it isn't of interest in their opinion, Google must remove the links upon someone's request.

    Wow. Courts have the right to censure based on what they think is interesting or not? Geez, I'm shocked this isn't California in the US.
     
  4. Accursed

    Accursed Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    311
    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Wouldn't this fall under freedom of speech and press here in the states? Also it is just public record, he did the crime. Now he wants it so it can't be seen?

    Uk seems pretty screwed up if this criminal can somehow convince the courts to censor all the internet(Google search results) and keep his crime hidden.
     
  5. Disco_Stu_04

    Disco_Stu_04 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    323
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Over there it's a very different approach to prisons--Europe is big on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
     
    Talyrius, JackNSally and Chunder like this.
  6. RussianJ

    RussianJ n00bie

    Messages:
    58
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2012
    Interesting they can control the flow of public records like that. If it was public record before, why should it change now. For once in my life, I agree with Google.
     
  7. naib

    naib Gawd

    Messages:
    990
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    well this is bullshit...
    if it happened it should be archived NOT erased just because it hurts you...
     
  8. JosiahBradley

    JosiahBradley [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,563
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    I for one vote Google shuts down in the UK (why not all of Europe) that'll literally stop a good chunk of business. Imagine no gmail, search, youtube for your citizens. Good one fUKers.
     
    Chupachup and captaindiptoad like this.
  9. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris Wii was a Novelty

    Messages:
    17,379
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    You must be new to the Internet because you seem to not understand what service Google provides.
     
    Talyrius likes this.
  10. Bawjaws

    Bawjaws Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    222
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    I'm sensing some hostility here.
     
    auntjemima likes this.
  11. arentol

    arentol 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,721
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    For those that don't realize... That Google must remove links to old negative stories about people at their request is long since a dead horse. The UK (and entire EU IIRC) decided many years ago that people have the right to request, and effectively force, Google and other search engines to remove negative information about them. These cases are just helping determine the set of circumstances under which Google must do so.

    I would have to read the law but I would think there is a simple workaround for this if someone who harmed you gets their links/articles removed from Google and you want people to know what they did.... Write a new article about them that links to the old articles, but also has very current information in it. They can't request that the new information be unsearchable and so the old links will remain. It will require someone googling them to follow the deeper links, but it is better than nothing. Then it is just a matter of getting your article near the top of their results, which might be the hard part.
     
    britjh22 and Revdarian like this.
  12. velusip

    velusip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,311
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    That's a strange modern-day take on "rewriting history".
     
    Revdarian and mynamehere like this.
  13. bman212121

    bman212121 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,512
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2011
  14. BB Gun

    BB Gun [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,433
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    No Shit Sherlock, that's called consequences. That's why in the US JUVENILE records are sealed - that's your "young and stupid" phase that won't be held against you. But once you're an adult - its all on you. Maybe you should think about that before you do something wrong/illegal.
     
    Revdarian, mord and mynamehere like this.
  15. Chupachup

    Chupachup Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    Thirty years ago my uncle was trying to document our family tree. He backtracked our fairly wide roots to my ancestors first setting foot in Nova Scotia and throughout New England from Europe between 174 to 196 years ago. After almost a year of trying to work with the French embassy to get documents released regarding the disposition of relatives that stayed behind, he ended up flying to France and visiting the communities he knew we hailed from. It was only through his persistence and diligence that descendants of our long separated family lines were able to provide more detail to our history as it had been passed to them or was available to them as natural born Frenchmen. I thought it wholly ridiculous then, as I do now, that matters of public record, i.e., birth, marriage, employment, incarceration and death, are held to such levels of secrecy by those countries.
     
  16. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,942
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    The UK, enough said. Seems like a worse place to live than NK at this point.

    Isolationist politics - check
    No free speech - check
    Thought crime policing - check
    Rape and grooming gangs left roaming free, and kept a secret for years - check
    Open censorship - check

    Fuck the UK, I hope it sinks to the bottom of the sea at this point. Get out while you can.
     
  17. Meeho

    Meeho 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,601
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    One of those things is not like the other.
     
  18. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,942
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    They're the same as far as they're things why I'm glad now I didn't give in to the nice voice inviting me to live in the UK.
     
  19. Bawjaws

    Bawjaws Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    222
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
     
    Lakados and wra18th like this.
  20. Aireoth

    Aireoth [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,208
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Imho the right to be forgotten is a positive, not negative.
     
  21. mord

    mord Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    It's the grooming gangs right? I'm the world's worst at typos, but I'm still imagining gangs of thugs running around with tubs of water, doggie shampoo, nail clipers, etc looking for dogs to groom.
     
    britjh22 likes this.
  22. mord

    mord Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    249
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    In what way do you mean? In general, or specific to this case?
     
  23. rudy

    rudy [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,297
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Like all things I am pretty sure this is going to quickly become a joke. When search engines took off we had the advent of SEO, with the right to be forgotten I bet rich people can now hire a company that just systematically requests all bad info about anyone be deleted. I never saw the value in the right to be forgotten. I think that if someone puts out false information about you then you have a right to have it removed as well as go after them. But if the information is true I think there is nothing wrong with it being out there.
     
  24. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,272
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    I don't know, an individual gaining more and or stronger rights is not a bad thing in my eyes even if ex criminals... It is the unsavory situations that lead to a desire to eliminate or weaken rights, this is wrong and everyone should understand it.
     
  25. rudy

    rudy [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,297
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Individual rights is a matter of perspective did they give or take? To me it's the net gain and why I think think it's more important that the law strive to be fair. Lets say that this business man is about to join my company maybe he was given rights, but rights were taken away from all my coworkers who now don't have a tool to find out about something he did that may be very relevant to us.
     
  26. prava

    prava [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,454
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Yes, and it is the only way. Punishment doesn't work, rehabilitation and reintegration do.


    Yes, gogogogo! And lets see the hit Google takes in their stock.

    I wonder sometimes if people actually think what they write?!


    No, what they are doing is called rehabilitation.

    Also, you can always request the soon-to-be employee a court certificate if you are a real employer.

    But having my shit in search engines? No thanks. Specially nowadays that the media will crucify you for an indictment but will never release a non-guilty verdict or, if they do, it will never have the same exposure as the blame did.

    So yes, a VERY good thing.

    Because it isn't public matter.

    Why do you care about somebody elses marriage, employment, etc?



    Worse than NK?

    Troll spotted.

    Your company can require all candidates to submit a court certificate. As easy as that.

    But there is 0 need for any information to be on the internet by putting my name unless I want it that way. I have the right to decide what a private company does with my information. It is like this in many countries in the EU.
     
    britjh22 and Uvaman2 like this.
  27. RPGWiZaRD

    RPGWiZaRD Gawd

    Messages:
    835
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    It's a bit similar as the upcoming EU GDPR law that is coming 25.5 that the employee has the right to know exactly in which databases his/her details are found and the right to be forgotten from all the employers databases. Circumstances are different, policies quite similar.

    Google will have nightmares with this new law for sure,
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
    Bawjaws likes this.
  28. prava

    prava [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,454
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    As it should be.

    I should have the right to control MY private information.
     
    Bawjaws likes this.
  29. Bawjaws

    Bawjaws Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    222
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2017
    Why do your co-workers have the right to know everything about a potential new colleague? They don't. As an employer you have the right to ask any potential hire to disclose prior convictions or to undertake background checks, but that is not remotely the same as your staff Googling a new colleague to see if there's anything salacious in their online history.
     
    Revdarian and Uvaman2 like this.
  30. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,942
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    What you spotted is overdramatization. And also it seems, an easy way (or at least what you perceived to be an easy way) to avoid addressing the actual problems with the UK. But I'm not going to let you get away with that. If you had no counter argument (which is admittedly hard to come by against a list of facts) then you shouldn't have tried to dismiss my statements based on something which I clearly didn't mean literally.
     
  31. prava

    prava [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,454
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    You made a very inflammatory comment, which is what trolling is. Specially when you compare a western country to NK and say that they should sink to the bottom of the ocean.

    I'm not playing your game.
     
  32. Chupachup

    Chupachup Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    408
    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2014
    If those events were posted in a newspaper or registered in a public record at a courthouse then it was and is publicly released/held information that should be freely available! As for my reasons for caring, those are ways to trace my family's origin.:)

    If you wish to keep your information private then don't put it in the public space in the first place;)
     
    Gorankar likes this.
  33. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,272
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    One thing is public records, another is widespread easy dissemination. Its a big difference.. And yes individuals gained more rights, no question.
     
  34. Gorankar

    Gorankar [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,385
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    Delete them from google.uk and forget about them. The UK should not get to decide what I can see in a search engine. Of course that just means people will switch to other search engines or search on the uncensored, er less censored, version of the search engine.
    Once your data is out there in a public space, it is out there. Even if google delete every reference to this individual, it will still be out there and still be easy to find. This very lawsuit is now public record, and the reason for the lawsuit will continue to be easily found out. This ex con will not be able to cover up his past crimes.
     
  35. prava

    prava [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,454
    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    No, it won't. If somebody deletes his records you will have to manually search in every single page that could contain said information. Chances are you won't find anything significant unless we are talking about something gigantic.

    Still, in Europe we believe in rehab to the full extend. Yes, you get to live past your crimes once you paid for them. And why wouldn't you?




    Do you realise that sometimes you don't have a saying in how your information is treated?

    I can tell you that, here, all limited liability companies (not just publicly traded, all of them) have to present their numbers at the end of every fiscal year. Those records are public (as in... you go to the Registry, pay a fee and give your ID, and you get those records). What I'm getting at is that just because something is public doesn't mean that is has to be publicly, unlimitedly available.
     
  36. M76

    M76 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,942
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Translation:
    I don't have any actual arguments. Just make pointless replies to random posts to spite people.

    I think I know who is the troll among us.

    You have the right to be offended, but the fact that you're offended doesn't mean you're right.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
    Chupachup likes this.
  37. IcePickFreak

    IcePickFreak Gawd

    Messages:
    969
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Great, next time I see a brit complaining about gas/petrol prices, or any other of their taxes I'll remind them that they get to hide their criminal past if they need to though, so it's a wash. :pompous:
     
  38. dgz

    dgz [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,340
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Eh, google is not public record. What they do is nothing like public record.
     
    Void likes this.
  39. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    12,902
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    So going through microfiche in a public library is fine but damnit we are not going to make it easy for someone to do research on another person using the internet!
     
  40. rudy

    rudy [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    8,297
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Once something is public record then it should be easily accessible that is the point of public record. The other way if thinking leads to more corruption and less good. Let's take home buying for example house sales are public record but prior to the internet making info easily accessible there was tons of deceit and corruption, agents lying, grabbing up houses or not showing them, people over paying or offered a low ball. Now zillow and other online data based puts information and power in the hands of most people easily. Sales go up for everyone to browse, you can figure out if your agent is ripping you off. And you don't need to go digging through some files or pay anyone to do it. I think right to be forgotten ripped the rights away from most decent people in favor granting them to a few often nefarious people. It should be about the truth. That is what gives rights to the most people.