6 ms·
The article is misleading and incorrect, possibly written to inflame smart geeks into noticing a crazy recursive loop. Those news articles about the right to b
by alain94040 11y ago
The article is misleading and incorrect, possibly written to inflame smart geeks into noticing a crazy recursive loop.
Those news articles about the right to be forgotten mention some private people by name, who have exercised their "right to be forgotten." The only request is that Google doesn't find a hit when someone searches for those people's names. If your search terms don't include those names, then it's ok to find those articles. Just not if you are specifically searching for info on those particular people by name.
It's sad that a journalist would forget to mention the key point. Then people get justifiably upset, and no one wins.
- nicklaf 11y agoIn my mind, this only makes the law itself all the more evidently absurd.
- kuschku 11y agoWell, the law has one thing in mind: You should be able to stumble upon knowledge, or if you know where to look, but a future employer, or a neighbor, etc should not be able to find out about crimes you did when you were a teen.
- bmelton 11y agoPerhaps the real fix is in not publishing the details of teenagers who commit crimes?
- plorkyeran 11y agoI think that's absolutely the correct solution, but it doesn't help all of the people who already had information about their actions as teenagers published.
- tracker1 11y agoIf it were illegal, you could then file takedowns from the publishers, and it wouldn't show up in google anymore... Google should not be an enforcement arm for internet censorship... the end.
- kuschku 11y agoWell, it is forbidden in Germany, but some newspapers will still do it, and then just eat the fine. BILD is very infamous for this.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoMaybe the solution is for teenagers to not commit crimes?
- kodablah 11y agoUsing a popular search engine that abides by EU laws is not the only way to find out about things. Killing the messenger does nothing to the message.
- happyscrappy 11y agoYou can tell this to Europeans until you are blue in the face but they will not listen. They think they can impose their censorship on the world.
- x0x0 11y agoYeah, totes weird how Europeans expect companies operating inside Europe to obey European law.
- happyscrappy 11y agoIt does no good if you can just use google.com and that will never be censored but pretend is good enough for them.
- x0x0 11y agoit's perfectly reasonable for eu companies to say any google service accessed from within eu borders shall be so regulated If google doesn't like it, they are free to stop doing business inside the eu.
- MichaelGG 11y agoIt's not very reasonable to attempt to enforce geo boundaries on the Internet. It's a silly, backwards, approach. It might be something governments are doing, but that's only to be expected of them, always looking to increase influence and control.
- happyscrappy 11y agoIf Europe is foolish enough to try then Google will dump them, just like China.
- jaredklewis 11y agoI'm sympathetic to the goal and the individuals affected, and while the law provides some small benefit to these individuals, I think that benefit must be weighed against the (to my mind) large cost to society at large. The law places a very large burden on search engines (and who knows, perhaps other platforms in the future) that now must evaluate and remove/deny all requests or risk expensive litigation. I think most companies will err or the side of safety and remove most requests, making censorship easy.
- zmonkeyz 11y agoEspecially when one John Smith can speak for the rest.
- genericuser 11y agoYes, but it is effectively saying that the "right to be forgotten" means that the right extends to the topic/event covered on the pages as it relates to that person not the pages themselves. Hopefully this will not extend to all new content created about the past events and the person, because there could at times be a reason for new content on an old topic to be relevant to the public and people should be able to find it then. I fear it will however.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- bcoates 11y agoNot really, is just sounds like you have a legal interest in what results from searches for your name. Google is running a de-facto background search service and they're being regulated like one.
- tracker1 11y agoThat is insane... I want to be found online... so if someone else with my name files a request, people will no longer be able to google my name? You do something stupid online, and regret it? Sucks to be you. I have a common name, and the idea that someone with the same name could wipe me from all of google's results is ridiculous to say the least. It's a stupid law written by people with no understanding of technical limitations or the competence to think these things through, much like the people using this law.
- sago 11y ago> the idea that someone with the same name could wipe me from all of google's results is ridiculous to say the least Yup, it is ridiculous. It is also not what happens, not what the law provides for and not what the article is talking about.
- tracker1 11y agoI realize that, but it is what the person I was replying to was suggesting should be the case.