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

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#111

Post by DasIch »

andrewfong wrote: post #70
kjjw wrote: post #39

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…

> 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 as…

You can't just change your name everywhere.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#112

Post by ewillbefull »

josephlord wrote: post #32
gadders wrote: post #7

The EU really is a joke. I think if people want to hide stuff like revenge porn, or obvious slander, then fair enough. But unindexing legitimate journalism is stupid.

I think there are games being played here. The European Court ruled that some things should be made harder to find (revenge porn, obvious slander, spent convictions etc.). Google don't want to do this and are trying to make a mockery of the ruling removing from the results anything that they are asked to as long as it is about a person with the very aim of stirring a backlash against the ruling. Requests to take down…

> On the one hand Google's results can cause a lot of damage

Public, factual information causes damage and Google is responsible because somebody else reported on it and they indexed it? And so Google should stop linking to the article which will still exist and can be found on other search engines in other jurisdictions without any effort? And we can pretend online censorship works all of a sudden now that the EU found a "good" excuse for it?

> The European Court ruled that some things should be made harder to find (revenge porn, obvious slander, spent convictions etc.).

So what does freedom of expression mean to you, then? A regulated, controlled public discourse with arbitrary rules about what the government thinks is relevant or important for people to know or read about? And it looks like you slipped "spent convictions" in there, which throws off the argument.

I think you already made your mind up.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#113

Post by DasIch »

kllrnohj wrote: post #106
privong wrote: post #21

Earlier 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?

Easy. Remove the special exception the EU randomly added to Google and Google only. Laws that are specific to a single company are obviously bullshit. Then we just end up back in the previous situation where you had to get the site that posted the content to remove it, which had a fairly well defined set of requirements. And tada! Just like that there's no problem anymore.

The EU added no special exception or a previous situation to go to.

This is simply the result of the courts interpretation of the law as it is and it applies to every search engine not just Google.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#114

Post by arg01 »

shakethemonkey wrote: post #98
vbuterin wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a name for deliberately making a big fuss of following every regulation as expansively as possible to prove a point; inverse civil disobedience, civil obedience maybe?

There is, it's called "work-to-rule."

Somewhat ironically some countries have laws that make work-to-rule (usually phrased in law as malicious compliance) as illegal.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#115

Post by blisterpeanuts »

I don't understand; did they single out Google, or does the ruling also apply to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Apple, Facebook, and many other companies that cache results?

Search engines may cache information, but the content usually originates on some other hosting site. Those hundreds of thousands of hosting sites may still have the content, so what the Court is saying is all the more silly--you must disallow search results if anyone in the world opts out.

I say, Google should just go about its business and if EC doesn't like it, Google should pull out of Europe and just allow anyone to access it from overseas servers. It will be just like China, which blocks Google.

Information wants to be free. This is a huge step backward.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#116

Post by andrewfong »

DasIch wrote: post #111
andrewfong wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 as…

You can't just change your name everywhere.

Why not? People change their names all the time (e.g. for marriage or religious reasons), so there's existing precedence for this. During the name change process, you get a certificate of name change, so that helps with issues with bank account names, contracts, etc. Your friends and family may still refer to you by your old name, but that's generally not an issue from a "right to forget" standpoint. The only difference would be that the government would seal any records regarding your name change.

Changing your name is, at any rate, easier than making other people forget what you did last summer.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#117

Post by andrewfong »

vacri wrote: post #89
andrewfong wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 as…

A name change is not simple, particularly if you are a bit further along in life.

That's the point. If there is something so terrible that you feel the need to hide truthful information on the Internet, then the process shouldn't be simple.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#118

Post by jacalata »

ewillbefull wrote: post #110
lisper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody got in trouble in the U.S. for reporting on/distributing the Snowden leaks. There weren't any newspaper raids. Nobody was asked to "keep quiet". Anyone who did censor did so out of mutual interest. Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The wo…

Greenwald doesn't seem to think so. James Risen probably doesn't agree.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#119

Post by lisper »

ewillbefull wrote: post #110
lisper wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody got in trouble in the U.S. for reporting on/distributing the Snowden leaks. There weren't any newspaper raids. Nobody was asked to "keep quiet". Anyone who did censor did so out of mutual interest. Press freedoms have not been eviscerated here. It's a trendy narrative, but in reality you have enormous freedom to distribute content which was illegally obtained as per the Pentagon Papers cases and others. The wo…

> Nobody was asked to "keep quiet"

Given the existence of NSL's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter) there is no way of knowing who has been "asked" to keep quiet.

And when Glenn Greenwald visited the U.S. recently it was far from clear that he would not be taken into custody.

Re: Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

#120

Post by DasIch »

andrewfong wrote: post #116
DasIch wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just change your name everywhere.

Why not? People change their names all the time (e.g. for marriage or religious reasons), so there's existing precedence for this. During the name change process, you get a certificate of name change, so that helps with issues with bank account names, contracts, etc. Your friends and family may still refer to you by your old name, but that's generally not an issue from a "right to forget" standpoint. The only differe…

In the US that might be the case, that doesn't make it so in other countries.

In Germany the scenarios in which you are allowed to change your name are all defined by law. While you are allowed to change your name for resocialization or as a protection against harassment, you can get search results removed for reasons that wouldn't allow a name change.

Furthermore changing your name takes quite a bit of effort, asking a search engine to remove search results is a much simpler process.

Post reply on HN