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

Google bows to EU privacy ruling

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#11

Post by microtonal »

arrrg wrote: post #2

I don't know why, but this creeps me out. This seems like such a hard balance to get right and also too much of a burden for search engines. Also, there is potential for abuse.

Sure, it is a hard balance to get right. But privacy is an important right and we should not throw it away because it creates some extra effort for a multi-billion dollar company.

I also find it weak that Page plays the 'think of the startups' card. In fact, I think that since the Snowden leaks, there are far more opportunities to create privacy-aware or privacy-protecting services. E.g., I am pretty sure that Duckduckgo, a startup in search, benefitted tremendously from the recent attention to privacy issues.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#12

Post by tomp »

dang wrote: post #7
jve wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you search Google and copy a link from results page, thats what you get. Links are going through google.com and redirected to the site. This is probably what author did. :/

It's a clever trick. Unfortunately, it breaks the referential integrity of the post. I don't think we can allow it as the submission url, for the same reason we don't allow link shorteners. People who are already posting links to Google searches in comments, though, might want to post these instead. For those reading this later, the submitted url was http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd...

Quite a few of your comments about editorial decisions (changing URL, changing title) include a note about what the original was. I really like that, it helps people make sense of the conversation.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#13

Post by Fuxy »

arrrg wrote: post #2

I don't know why, but this creeps me out. This seems like such a hard balance to get right and also too much of a burden for search engines. Also, there is potential for abuse.

It's also useless the content isn't removed it is just impossible to find in search engines.

If You can make a decentralized search engine that indexes everything no exceptions you would still find it.

Or you could make your own. It doesn't make it impossible to find just impossible for the average person.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#14

Post by marincounty »

microtonal wrote: post #11
arrrg wrote: post #2

I don't know why, but this creeps me out. This seems like such a hard balance to get right and also too much of a burden for search engines. Also, there is potential for abuse.

Sure, it is a hard balance to get right. But privacy is an important right and we should not throw it away because it creates some extra effort for a multi-billion dollar company. I also find it weak that Page plays the 'think of the startups' card. In fact, I think that since the Snowden leaks, there are far more opportunities to create privacy-aware or privacy-protecting services. E.g., I am pretty sure that Duckdu…

Duckduckgo is getting better each quarter. Whenever I type anything into a search engine; I now pause for a micro second, 1/8 of the time I access DDG.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#15

Post by blazespin »

Oh those poor search engines, making billions of dollars having to have the decency to let private individuals not have to have their lives opened up to casual searches on the internet 24/7. What a tragedy!

I for one have NO DESIRE for my children to grow up in a world where they do not have control over information about themselves on the internet. I can only pray this sensible law makes it to North America.

For those downvoting - are you a shill for Google? Try reading the form itself to appreciate how exceedingly reasonable it is:

A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union found that certain users can ask search engines to remove results for queries that include their name where those results are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed.” In implementing this decision, we will assess each individual request and attempt to balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information. When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information—for example, information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#16

Post by blazespin »

Fuxy wrote: post #13
arrrg wrote: post #2

I don't know why, but this creeps me out. This seems like such a hard balance to get right and also too much of a burden for search engines. Also, there is potential for abuse.

It's also useless the content isn't removed it is just impossible to find in search engines. If You can make a decentralized search engine that indexes everything no exceptions you would still find it. Or you could make your own. It doesn't make it impossible to find just impossible for the average person.

Which is really the idea. The law isn't about squelching free speech, it's just trying to keep this information from being so easily available. It's the right balance.

I find it so incredibly hard to believe that so many people are falling for this "poor-us" google routine. I just shake my head in bewilderment every time I hear it.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#17

Post by cyphunk »

Larry's request at TED a few months back that we have more faith in corporations shows how much we have already lost to the hands of an increasingly commercial internet. When it is clear that there is no neutral party to trust any more (gov nor corp) balkanisation through enforcement of new laws is a needed and natural effect.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#18

Post by hellbreakslose »

Google bows... Misleading title by Financial Times that doesn't bow under laws eh? Funny how the media can manipulate the wording and judge someone.

It's called LAW! You don't BOW to it, you OBEY.

What would FT do in Google case? form an army and go fight against the EU?... Sick of reading articles like that.

Its sad that the EU is voting those laws, but its not Google fault of trying to be a legal company...

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#19

Post by Vik1ng »

microtonal wrote: post #11
arrrg wrote: post #2

I don't know why, but this creeps me out. This seems like such a hard balance to get right and also too much of a burden for search engines. Also, there is potential for abuse.

Sure, it is a hard balance to get right. But privacy is an important right and we should not throw it away because it creates some extra effort for a multi-billion dollar company. I also find it weak that Page plays the 'think of the startups' card. In fact, I think that since the Snowden leaks, there are far more opportunities to create privacy-aware or privacy-protecting services. E.g., I am pretty sure that Duckdu…

Also open data like OpenStreetMap will really help DuckDuckGo and other services to contest google in that market. Especiylly when that data is connected to Wikipedia & Wikidata then they can show similar snippets as google.

Re: Google bows to EU privacy ruling

#20

Post by yuhong »

microtonal wrote: post #11
arrrg wrote: post #2

I don't know why, but this creeps me out. This seems like such a hard balance to get right and also too much of a burden for search engines. Also, there is potential for abuse.

Sure, it is a hard balance to get right. But privacy is an important right and we should not throw it away because it creates some extra effort for a multi-billion dollar company. I also find it weak that Page plays the 'think of the startups' card. In fact, I think that since the Snowden leaks, there are far more opportunities to create privacy-aware or privacy-protecting services. E.g., I am pretty sure that Duckdu…

It doesn't create extra effort just for the companies involved.
Post reply on HN