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

Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 152 posts

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#61

Post by auxbuss »

There's a possible darker side to this, of course.

Today, the following story -- regarding an ex-member of the British Cabinet and a paedophile network -- started gaining a lot of traction in the UK, mainly because there are an increasing number of Members of Parliament (MPs) demanding an inquiry[0]:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/02/lord-brittan...

The story itself has been around for decades.

Coincidentally, Google have begun removing articles relating to the story[1] -- for example, the search "Leon Brittan PIE" will return -- at the bottom of the page:

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

Currently, for this notice, chillingeffects.org returns[2]:

"Notice Unavailable: The cease-and-desist or legal threat you requested is not yet available. Chilling Effects will post the notice after we process it."

Coincidence or not, it's a troubling how easily this mechanism can be abused.

[0] http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5282/pressure-builds-in-pa...

[1] http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/google-searches-for...

[2] http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=1719125

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#62

Post by gress »

rguldener wrote: post #43
CodeMage wrote: post #40

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?

It is very hard to define exactly what "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" means and if Google refuses to delete an entry upon request the person asking for the deletion can sue them if they disagree with Google (which they probably would since they asked for the deletion in the first place). This could potentially result in thousands of expensive cases for Google which means they will probably just follow…

Google has a definition of what is relevant. It's not hard to come up with one. What is hard is to get people to agree. Right now Google controls the definition, but given it's monopoly status in Europe, it is not surprising that The EU is starting to work on this.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#63

Post by thisjepisje »

valas wrote: post #48
outside1234 wrote: post #30

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.

FWIW, in some EU countries holocaust denial is a crime.

But not speaking about the holocaust isn't.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#64

Post by Justsignedup »

Nobody has attacked the elephant in the room.

If an article was written about me committing murder, and I want that "forgotten", then I will request google to take the info down in the EU. Great. A background checking company goes to "www.google.com" and finds that article. They don't give a shit that they are in France and should abide by the french blocks, or they'll use a proxy. That's the point, this is completely stupid and prevents a common untrained person from accessing the information, but does nothing for background checks and the like.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#65

Post by happyscrappy »

personZ wrote: post #3

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…

The internet routes around foolishness like this, thankfully. The only thing the EU court is doing here is damaging their own credibility.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#66

Post by aetherson »

eli wrote: post #35
magicalist wrote: post #27

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.

He or she says it because it's true, and widely reported.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#67

Post by dap »

kjjw wrote: post #39
personZ wrote: post #3

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…

> For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record.

They could do that by avoiding judgment on a teenager with a critical record rather than not pretending like that record doesn't exist. And if the problem is that too many people are judging, then it's not true that society at large really does feel the same way about it.

Give people facts, not judgments about the facts.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#68

Post by lisper »

andrewfong wrote: post #60
ulfw wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ...

Yes, but the problem is that what is a "matter of national security" in practice is whatever the government says it is. So this exception is enough to effectively eviscerate the freedom of the press.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#70

Post by andrewfong »

kjjw wrote: post #39
personZ wrote: post #3

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…

> For example, I fully expect a modern society to give a second chance to a difficult teenager that receives a criminal record. Many governments would hide such a record after a certain time.

There seems to be a simpler way to accomplish this than the current EU approach: a name change. It seems much easier to have an individual change his or her identity than to have the whole of society collectively agree to not associate a name with some act. You might still need some law to prohibit linking old identities with new ones, but this is vastly more workable than asking third parties to decide if something is "inadequate or irrelevant". It's also less likely to be abused -- e.g. a politician can't censor a prior criminal act while simultaneously getting the benefits of name recognition.

Moreover, since a name change typically requires some sort of administrative petition, it provides an opportunity for judicial oversight. You could make it work like bankruptcy -- you petition the court for a name change, and a judge would decide what aspects of your old identity carrier over to your new one.

Post reply on HN