Buy the ticket, take the ride.
EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
61–70 of 77 posts
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#62It won't take long before a UK search for Dougie McDonald shows the article talking about how the articles about Dougie McDonald have been removed from Google, and what those articles are about. Google tells the media which articles are being expunged, the media writes about the articles Google expunged and then Google indexes these pages in their search results. Interesting process.
Presumably, Dougie McDonald will in turn request those pages be disassociated from his name in Google's search index. Interesting to note that plenty of other non-Guardian results relating to his duplicitous behaviour currently appear when searching for his name [1] [2] [3]; will those too disappear in the near future? I have a feeling a lot of articles about Dougie McDonald are about to spring up; this is the first I've heard of the case. Has Dougie McDonald not heard of the Streisand effect? [4]
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/9143508.s... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1333950/Re... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/celtic/80980... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#63It's shocking that this is being applied to articles from 2010. It shows how quickly a small crack in free speech is expanded way beyond its intent. I am sure no reasonable person would argue that the intent of the EU ruling was that something that happened 4 years ago is no longer "relevant". The reasonable intent was for things that are decades old, perhaps from a time and context either at the individual level or the societal level that are likely to cause a read to seriously misinterpret or misunderstand the material.
I don't think Google should escape criticism here. Yes they have to follow the law, but they should be aggressively pressing to the minimum boundary of what they have been asked to do. They should be declining cases like this and wearing the law suits that result until the real line and intent is hammered out. It sounds like they are taking a DMCA-like approach and taking things down by default, and that is very very worrying.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#64The fact that this law is going to be applied blindly as a technical solution to a human problem is the issue.
There is one missing piece here : a judge.
Add a judge , and this whole problem goes away.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#65The BBC also received notifications from Google today that some of their articles had been hidden from EU search results - http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581
Hopefully sites like BBC, The Guardian and others will maintain an article listing all the de-registered / hidden articles.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a poor article - casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship. Careful reading of the entire article places the blame on where it's supposed to be - the Law - but the fact that the article kept calling out Google, when it should have been repeatedly mentioning the law that Google was complying with, was problematic.
Interesting, I have no such feeling of 'casual reading of it leads one to believe that Google is engaging in Censorship'.
Title, Introduction, First Paragraph read as follows:
EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not Google
When you Google someone from within the EU, you no longer see what the search giant thinks is the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.
My Rewrite:
EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been required removed by law.
Publishers must fight back against this indirect challenge to press freedom, which allows articles to be 'disappeared'. Editorial decisions belong with them, not the government.
When you search someone from within the EU, you no longer see what might be the most important and relevant information about an individual. You see the most important information the target of your search is not trying to hide.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
After reading your link, it sounds like peter understands it just fine. He did say "send takedown request to Google".. and that's exactly the situation that is described in your PDF when discussing the case. The article says the court decided that the newspaper archive would be kept intact, and Google would need to delete the links -- and this was the correct balance of the public's right to know. In fact, from my re…
> In fact, from my reading of the article, I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where Google could refuse to delete a link. How about the case discussed right here? The summary linked above says: 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 acc…
Does Google want to do a good job of assessing requests?
I think it highly unlikely that the court would want this article suppressed. I think Google may be taking things down over enthusiastically to bring the law and the ruling into disrepute. They are betting that the law rather than their particular takedown process will be blamed.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
That process is happening right now, and it is interesting. But will it continue, aka is it a viable long term workaround? Articles being removed is new and in a sense exciting for the press, Google, and the public- that probably won't be so in a few months or years.
Maybe every media company should have a summary page for each of their articles that have been removed from Google. And Google should prioritize those summary pages in its searches.
That would be great. Can this easily be automated so companies don't have to do anything and the result is there, helping people?
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#69Whats especially troubling is that this is spilling over to other countries now. I always felt that despite having relatively lax laws in regards to the internet, russia is starting to turn into a seriously unfriendly place for the internet. Being a expat in moscow makes it especially awkward as I have tasted the koolaid on the 'free' side.
Re: EU's right to be forgotten: Guardian articles have been hidden by Google
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact, from my reading of the article, I'm having a hard time thinking of a case where Google could refuse to delete a link. How about the case discussed right here? The summary linked above says: 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 acc…
Does Google want to do a good job of assessing requests? I think it highly unlikely that the court would want this article suppressed. I think Google may be taking things down over enthusiastically to bring the law and the ruling into disrepute. They are betting that the law rather than their particular takedown process will be blamed.
The law imposes a penalty if an appropriate request is not honored, but does not, as I understand, do so if an inappropriate request is honored. It therefore encourages exactly the behavior Google is taking, because erring on the side of taking things down is the legally safe approach.
The DMCA notice/counternotice arrangement has a similar but more subtle effect, because while it is superficially symmetric, the situation of the parties with respect to it is asymmetric in a way which results in the one side systematically being privileged.