Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic • Hacker News Board

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#51

Post by neolefty » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

Google says it is protecting people from still-predatory actors:

> The claimants ... argue that since their crimes are decades old, they should be able to move on from their past. .... Google counters that the information is in the public interest, and still relevant given that the nature of the claimants’ business has not changed dramatically in the ensuing years.

Google is being picky about what to remove and, in this case, go to great lengths to back up their judgment. What is motivating them? Do they want to preserve information for its own sake, or for their own relevance as a search engine? Or both?

> [Google] reported that it rejects more than half of the requests it receives, but did not provide insight as to why.

The statistics of who wants things removed, and why, are surely very interesting. Here's a report from Google (linked from the article):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H4MKNwf5MgeztG7OnJRnl3ym3gI...

Edit: Oops I should have read further!

> England’s Information Commissioner ... warned that if the court sided with Google, it would completely defang the original ruling. “In effect,” she wrote, Google “would be able to operate the right to be forgotten regime almost entirely free from regulatory oversight and control.”

Is Google looking for a blanket exemption?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#52

Post by gaius » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:11 PM UTC

lightbyte wrote: post #34

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record.

Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise.

This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. It will still be there for anyone willing to put in the effort to find it of course. Just like it was in the old days.

Google will happily ruin that person's life forever for a few cents in ad clicks. Think about that.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#53

Post by jbigelow76 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #40

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth?

No we should not, the law seems well intentioned, some kid may not have to worry about an embarrassing photo from university days following him/her around into their adult life, etc. But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#54

Post by danShumway » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

I see a lot of people claim that this is just about having information at the top of a search result, and I agree that's better than outright censorship.

But, I still take some small amount of umbrage with people claiming that nothing is being erased, just people's ability to find it. I think that's a very blurry line to draw - the idea the it's OK for information to exist somewhere in the void, but making it too easy to access is not OK.

The intent behind rules like this is to make it much harder for people to access information. If Google isn't the Internet, and delisting won't suppress speech, then what value is the law? If Google is the Internet, and delisting from their site will hide information from the public, then how is this not censorship?

There's no point in getting myself delisted from Google unless I expect that this will prevent most people from being able to find my information. People search names on Google because they want that information. The only way I can see for GDPR to stay effective or valuable in hiding me from those people is if it becomes a blanket ban on indexing or curation in general.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#55

Post by w0m » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:13 PM UTC

losteric wrote: post #40

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

This. Thank you.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#56

Post by neolefty » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

j45 wrote: post #32

Disappointing to hear this with the "do no evil" ethos of Google. Organizing all of the world's information is a great goal, but blurring the boundaries between personal, private information is another thing. If Google is journalistic: - Does Google know the difference between journalism and opinion/editorial content? - Can standards of external journalistic integrity be applied to Google? The majority of content onl…

Here's a report from Google with some stats about what was requested and what was removed:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H4MKNwf5MgeztG7OnJRnl3ym3gI...

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#57

Post by sumeno » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:14 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #50

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

>Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? I think even Trump should be entitled to accurate public reporting, for example, it should be noted Trump has never personally filed for bankruptcy, rather, he has been the owner of companies (casinos) that have filed for bankruptcy. Would you attribute the recent Toys R Us bankruptcy to individual owners? Or if your favorite startup goes under and…

> Would you attribute the recent Toys R Us bankruptcy to individual owners?

I wouldn't attribute it to the owners of individual stores, but the CEO? Absolutely

> Or if your favorite startup goes under and has to declare bankruptcy to shield itself from creditors before the company dissolves would you start attributing bankruptcy to individual employees with equity/stock options?

Trump wasn't an individual employee with stock options.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#58

Post by eberkund » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:15 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

You bring up a good point but I think the difference is the severity of the piece of information in question. Pedophilia and bankruptcies are already considered special bits of data that have their own dedicated information registries that maintain this information.

Up until this point in history it hasn't been feasible to do the same thing for every minute detail of every person's lives. This lack of feasibility is probably why the debate regarding this subject is unfortunately so far behind reality.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#59

Post by gaius » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:17 PM UTC

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record?

Your criminal record is expunged after a time. This is about whether Google is above the law of the land.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#60

Post by drb91 » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 7:18 PM UTC

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

What would an alternative to google look like, even? You still need a search engine for archive.org, for example.