Wait, so Google hasn't actually done anything to the article?
"Although the BBC has had the notice from Google that my article will not show up in some searches, it doesn't appear to have implemented this yet."
Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
51–60 of 152 posts
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#52> 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)…
The problem is your dealing with a court who decided that the _search result_ should be deleted and not the web page that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive". I would not bother arguing logically with them.
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#53Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#54I'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?
People tend to respond negatively to bad outcomes regardless of good intentions, and I'm not so sure the intentions are good in the first place. Additionally, the law showcases an utter misunderstanding of how the internet works and unfairly singles out a single company that many people are generally in favor of.
In an odd way though, if this is what is to be done, then targeting Google, as the primary (and these days nearly only) information source for the vast majority of people in the EU (and elsewhere) is actually quite reasonable.
The practicality of this sort of law (which I really can't decide if I am in favour of or not) has been decided by our apathetic approach to Google's dominance of what quite frankly is an increasingly large part of our day-to-day lives.
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#55I'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?
Who else is to blame? Google was very much against it and there aren't other parties at stake. The motivation has no bearing whatsoever, people doing bad things don't usually think of themselves as bad people.
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.
The incentive Google has is to not get sued for contravening a lawful order of the European Court. I don't see what conspiratorial wagering adds (the implied notions of your first post were obvious to all).
And be sure that every person with the means is going to exploit this immediately to expunge anything negative in their past. Google is in a position of being unable to decide what the European Court, or any other court, might decide is "relevant" (perhaps the court will be willing to offer its services to judge this), so the end result is obvious, no conspiracy needed.
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#57Down the memory hole goes everything in the EU. I'm thankful every day for the First Amendment in the US.
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#58To 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…
Unless Google wants to treat the EU like they did China and redirect all searches to a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms, they're doing all they can here.
"a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms"
And where would that be?
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid. The difficulty with following that logic is in the blurry middle area. Where is the line drawn and who makes that decision?
For starters, they could require a court order for each case. That would certainly limit the amount of requests.
That sequencing is probably not in compliance with the law. The fact sheet put out by the European high court makes it explicit:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...
"In practice, a search engine will have to delete information when it receives a specific request from a person affected... Google will then have to assess the deletion request on a case-by-case basis and to apply the criteria mentioned in EU law and the European Court’s judgment....
The request may for example be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to have access to the information in question justifies showing the links in Google search results. In such cases, John Smith still has the option to complain to national data protection supervisory authorities or to national courts. Public authorities will be the ultimate arbiters of the application of the Right to be Forgotten. "
Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless Google wants to treat the EU like they did China and redirect all searches to a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms, they're doing all they can here.
"a jurisdiction with actual press freedoms" And where would that be?
So long as you're not reporting on matters of "national security", the U.S. actually has a decent track record with that ...