41–50 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still show the results on non-EU TLDs.
Why do you say that? The court's authority AFAIK had nothing to do with the TLD being used, but because Google Spain is within their jurisdiction.
Could Google legally get around this ruling by claiming that recent deletion requests inherently make the data in question relevant? Since the right to be forgotten is important news, the stories about people requesting the deletion of their data (and what kinds of data are being deleted) is very relevant. It's the equivalent of the "every number is interesting" paradox.
Edit: proper quote from the ruling is actually "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive"
I'm sorry if I'm being naive, but can someone explain to me why everyone blames EU for this? I mean, the motivation behind the ruling seems to be a very good one. So what am I missing?
This could potentially result in thousands of expensive cases for Google which means they will probably just follow through with most of the deletion requests. This in turn means that many fear cases like this, where somebody could be trying to clean up their past, getting rid of entries that display them in a negative light, if justified or not.
At its core the idea of the law is probably desirable but the current wording and its subsequent implementation mean that is a powerful weapon for everybody trying to clean their past from the web.
I'm sorry if I'm being naive, but can someone explain to me why everyone blames EU for this? I mean, the motivation behind the ruling seems to be a very good one. So what am I missing?
> Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it. Could Google legally get around this ruling by claiming that recent deletion requests inherently make the data in question relevant? Since the right to be forgotten is important news, the stories about people requesting the deletion of their data (and what kinds of data are being deleted)…
To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling. But its implementation of it looks odd, perhaps clumsy. I find it incredible that Google is held at fault in this case because they don't choose whether it is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" in a way that fits the author's view. Such an analysis is so absurdly subjective, and it is impossible for Google to satisfy both sides. The European Cour…
Interesting to think that it is in Google's interest to create a clumsy system that does not properly check requested deletions. Too many deletions that have no merit under the scheme will likely create a backlash, placing a negative highlight on the scheme to the average person on the street who will now start to read news article after news article about erroneous deletions. What the EU is trying to do is likely im…
Recall that the original action that yielded the right to be forgotten clause was a gentleman who wanted a debt confiscation and sale removed from the public record. The actual national agency told him to get lost -- the data was valid and unchallenged, and is a part of the recognized past, and is fully available and robust if you search them -- but the European Court decided that search engines must, for some reason, erase this past.
Merrill Lynch was absorbed into Bank of America: It no longer exists as an organization. This gentleman has moved on and no longer serves as Chairman or CEO, effectively retired and sitting on apparently a single board.
Is a newspaper article slandering him really relevant (the pertinent demand of the court ruling) to anyone anymore?
Why, if the search engines have to pretend that a man didn't really have property confiscated and sold for debts, do they not have to also pretend that he wasn't a CEO?
Note that European courts really like giving out big fines (especially, it seems, to American companies), so this impossible to judge subjective basis by which items must be deleted is a no-win situation for Google, and of course they must lean to the side of erring to delete. Erring to retain is a legal quagmire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really see how it would be contempt of court for Google to shut down its European servers and redirect all its European domains to go to Google.com. It would be a lot of other things, but I don't think it would be contempt of court.
The court ordered Google Inc to remove certain listings. They did not specify "only on certain TLDs" or "only from certain servers." Including them in search results is violating the court order. I guess if Google pulled out of the EU entirely, closing all European subsidiaries, relocating employees and removing all assets, then they could make a case that the court no longer has jurisdiction... that seems like it'd…
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-pays-17m-in-...
Although I understand that the European Commission will soon be focusing their attention on the tax arrangements of some of the Irish-based tech giants (Apple, Google etc.)
Here's how this is going to do down: Google is going to slowly be asked to forget all of Europe, including the holocaust (since this is a stain on the families involved). This will cause a backlash against "erasing European history" And then they will repeal this. All through this, Google will be the villain, not the ding-dongs running the EU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just make it hard to find all the instances. For example, this article itself references the content in the article that was removed from search results. The effectiveness of having the original link removed is probably very minimal unless this page is also removed. Ultimately, it's a race. The "hider" has to find all the things they want hidden and explicitly list them. As long as the content spreads faster than…
It's just weird that the search engine is tasked with the removal. If other sites can legally link to the "forgotten" content - which appears to still be online - then why can't a search engine link to it? If they want this ruling to make sense at all, the removal requests should go directly to the entity hosting the content in my opinion.
Not to mention how much easier it is to send all requests to a handful of major search providers rather than having to determine who hosts what and hoping they know how to properly deal with such a request.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting to think that it is in Google's interest to create a clumsy system that does not properly check requested deletions. Too many deletions that have no merit under the scheme will likely create a backlash, placing a negative highlight on the scheme to the average person on the street who will now start to read news article after news article about erroneous deletions. What the EU is trying to do is likely im…
How does this request not have merit? What makes it "clumsy"? Because the linked author says it is? Recall that the original action that yielded the right to be forgotten clause was a gentleman who wanted a debt confiscation and sale removed from the public record. The actual national agency told him to get lost -- the data was valid and unchallenged, and is a part of the recognized past, and is fully available and r…
But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.