Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#391

Post by mirimir »

kenbaylor wrote: post #387
mirimir wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, over this one little case? That would suck.

It's been going on since 2010 in the Costeja case and they lost the case in 2014 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Spain_v_AEPD_and_Mario_... ), and 'interpreted it' as 'we'll just limit the results from Europe'. This was a landmark case, and they just keep losing them.

What stops them from continuing to interpret it that way?

Edit: So yes, I see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/respect-european-law-goog...

So what, Google could nuke all of its business operations in the EU, I suppose.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#392

Post by greyman »

smsm42 wrote: post #351
danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. It's not a technological problem. It may be a societal problem (e.g. we are supposed to forgive and forget, but instead we obsess over a mistake somebody made 30 years ago) but I don't see how it is a t…

>> Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information.

I feel it is basically a cultural issue. Many Europeans (including me) believe that the "right to be forgotten" is real, i.e. we want that right. Company with american cultural roots feels differently, so there's a clash. The main problem is that Google doesn't want to submit to our European culture; which is fine, they can fight in court.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#393

Post by mirimir »

shandor wrote: post #385
michaelmrose wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further if Europe can ask for info to be censored what happens when 100 other nations ask the same for their own reasons. Will the search index be composed only of data that is acceptable to all parties?

When EU dictates what can be in the search index it is "right to be forgotten". When China or Russia does it, it's at least "censorship", and probably also "dictatorship".

Well, Google already left China.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#394

Post by kiriakasis »

downandout wrote: post #161
moomin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article it was a bit more nuanced than that. The one who had the right to be forgotten denied had a track record of misleading people about his conviction. The court (rightly, in my view) took this behaviour as evidence that his conviction remained relevant in a way that it was not for the other person (described as showing remorse). They didn’t just measure the length of the sentence. IMHO, this is a…

I did read the article, but it simply said that the person had “continued to mislead the public”. At the very least I’d need to know more to call this fair, as we have no idea what that very broad statement entails. Is there proof that he continued to mislead the public? Has he been convicted of other crimes since then? What standard of proof was used to make this determination? If, for example, he has simply explain…

In the article it is said that he tried to mislead the court also.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#395

Post by saimis »

greyman wrote: post #392
smsm42 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. It's not a technological problem. It may be a societal problem (e.g. we are supposed to forgive and forget, but instead we obsess over a mistake somebody made 30 years ago) but I don't see how it is a t…

>> Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. I feel it is basically a cultural issue. Many Europeans (including me) believe that the "right to be forgotten" is real, i.e. we want that right. Company with american cultural roots feels differentl…

I’m an European and I’m completeley against this kind of censoring. Europe is not homogenous, don’t generalize. And this right to be forgotten is not a “human right” it’s a second chance, a gift, that should be given cautiously. Next time some polititian will want something to be forgotten.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#396

Post by eclat »

"The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person," said Jim Killock, executive director.

"The Court will have to balance the public's right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest."

I feel like every single comment on here has missed the point. This isn't about removing relevant information, it's about removing information that disproportionately affects an individual and is of no public interest. For example, if someone famous puts a gerbil up their bottom and gets sentenced for animal cruelty, and that gets widely publicised, it might be true but it affects that person extremely negatively at no cost or benefit to the rest of society. This is the case here: a man served his time and the court ruled that his case was not sufficiently relevant for the public interest to still be publically accessible - he cannot be descriminated against because of his past action. In developed countries this would never happen when the case is relevant for that person or society, for example a high ranking corruption case or if the person becomes a convicted paedophile.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#398

Post by kafquaesque »

briandear wrote: post #178
moomin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article it was a bit more nuanced than that. The one who had the right to be forgotten denied had a track record of misleading people about his conviction. The court (rightly, in my view) took this behaviour as evidence that his conviction remained relevant in a way that it was not for the other person (described as showing remorse). They didn’t just measure the length of the sentence. IMHO, this is a…

Why not attack the publication rather than the card catalog?

Requiring the publication to make the change is more feasible. In a hypothetical defamation situation the courts in the US have made this costly to do. In a conviction scenario Google search results can prevent people from being employed. I had a relative of a friend which had a published DUI which made it difficult for him to seek employment years after the issue. Employers have the ability to find criminal convictions and decide whether or not to hire an individual. Almost everyone googles people prior to contact.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#399

Post by summerdown2 »

danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

> It's not clear to me why it's not troubling to European citizens for their government to be in charge of what information is and isn't relevant to the public. Whenever I ask people about this, I get the response "well, that's why we have courts." I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine.

I think we trust our governments much more than US citizens trust there government. There's a line from Ronald Reagan that goes something like:

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The great preponderance of people in Europe simply do not think like this. For a huge range of issues that statement would actually sound reassuring in Europe. Essentially, if you believe in the rule of law and democracy, the government is simply ourselves, getting collectively together to fix something.

Note that this doesn't mean we like any particular politician. We despise many politicians. But the idea of government as a force for good still remains in Europe as far as I can see (UK). Sometimes I think the difference between Europe and the US is that we despise our politicians and quite like the non-political part of our government (civil service, NHS, etc). The US appears to hate the non-political part of it too.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#400

Post by [deleted] »

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN