4 ms·

> Can she never move on? Why should Google (or other search engines) bear the responsibility for covering up the mistakes of others? Should libraries be force

> Can she never move on? Why should Google (or other search engines) bear the responsibility for covering up the mistakes of others? Should libraries be forced to remove unflattering articles from their newspaper and magazine archives?

mattmanser 11y ago
Because that's part of the cost of doing business in the EU where we have laws to protect individuals from companies. No more, no less. It just is. Or to put it in another way because you're highlighting the 'cost'. You want to make billions from the search business in the EU? Then you need a way to spend a few hundred thousand obeying the law.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  So if a free search engine did this, then it'd be OK since it wasn't a for-profit company? Pretty sure that's broken logic.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    Where did I say that? If you're a small search engine, then it won't apply will it? If you become a big search engine and you're free, it's another running cost just like servers, which you'll be paying for somehow. If you run a free image hosting company you don't suddenly magically become immune from getting a knock on the door when you make no effort to remove kiddie porn? That's why the logic isn't broken.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      > If you're a small search engine, then it won't apply will it? Why do you think it won't apply to a small search engine? It applies to every search engine operating in the EU, independently of its size or status
      - mattmanser 11y ago
        Pretty obvious isn't it? If no-one knows about your search engine, they're not going to petition to have your results altered. And even if you were asked and didn't, would the petitioner actually escalate it to being taken to court? And on top of that, now we all know if you've got a search engine gathering data on EU soil you need to comply with EU law, you can build the functionality in from the beginning anyway. Which isn't prohibitively expensive. I don't know why you're grasping at this 'cost' straw, search is fantastically profitable. The search engines now have a social responsibility the EU courts have given to them to comply with, which costs a little but of money. It's like crazy laws like 'no pollution' or 'have safety equipment'. This one's 'stop algorithmically persecuting individuals'.
        Oletros 11y ago
        > Pretty obvious isn't it? If no-one knows about your search engine, they're not going to petition to have your results altered. You're a little confused, it is irrelevant if someone does a petition or not, every search engine has to comply the law and have the mechanisms available. > I don't know why you're grasping at this 'cost' straw When I have said anything about cost? > And on top of that, now we all know if you've got a search engine gathering data on EU soil you need to comply with EU law Really? Contradicting yourself?
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- jsolson 11y ago
  Is it not obvious that you're going to get general-purpose search engines which explicitly do not operate in Europe that exist for the sole purpose of finding information that's been erased from Google under the 'Right to be Forgotten'? In particular, search engines which prioritize/highlight information which has been erased making it easier to find things people wanted to keep hidden? For background checks, I expect a whole cottage industry will spring up of extra-European companies which provide European employers with background information that's hidden on the continent. It's not so much the ideal that the EC holds (that people have a right to be judged on their present rather than on an unaudited collection of searchable details from the past -- an ideal I can agree with), but that there seem to be a surprisingly large number of people who think the strategy they've adopted will actually be effective. It seems blindingly obvious to me (and I expect many other people who have been responding to you) that the inevitable outcome is going to be far far more effective at calling out things people would rather have forgotten than things as they stood before the ruling. To me it seems as if a startlingly large group of people has said, effectively, "this ideal is so important that we must take drastic action that guarantees we can never achieve it".
- charonn0 11y ago
  > Because that's part of the cost of doing business in the EU where we have laws to protect individuals from companies. This is not an answer to my question. Allow me to clarify: What is the justification for the EU law requiring search engines to cover up the mistakes of others?

mattmanser 11y ago

Because that's part of the cost of doing business in the EU where we have laws to protect individuals from companies. No more, no less. It just is. Or to put it in another way because you're highlighting the 'cost'. You want to make billions from the search business in the EU? Then you need a way to spend a few hundred thousand obeying the law.

MichaelGG 11y ago
So if a free search engine did this, then it'd be OK since it wasn't a for-profit company? Pretty sure that's broken logic.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  Where did I say that? If you're a small search engine, then it won't apply will it? If you become a big search engine and you're free, it's another running cost just like servers, which you'll be paying for somehow. If you run a free image hosting company you don't suddenly magically become immune from getting a knock on the door when you make no effort to remove kiddie porn? That's why the logic isn't broken.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    > If you're a small search engine, then it won't apply will it? Why do you think it won't apply to a small search engine? It applies to every search engine operating in the EU, independently of its size or status
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      Pretty obvious isn't it? If no-one knows about your search engine, they're not going to petition to have your results altered. And even if you were asked and didn't, would the petitioner actually escalate it to being taken to court? And on top of that, now we all know if you've got a search engine gathering data on EU soil you need to comply with EU law, you can build the functionality in from the beginning anyway. Which isn't prohibitively expensive. I don't know why you're grasping at this 'cost' straw, search is fantastically profitable. The search engines now have a social responsibility the EU courts have given to them to comply with, which costs a little but of money. It's like crazy laws like 'no pollution' or 'have safety equipment'. This one's 'stop algorithmically persecuting individuals'.
      - Oletros 11y ago
        > Pretty obvious isn't it? If no-one knows about your search engine, they're not going to petition to have your results altered. You're a little confused, it is irrelevant if someone does a petition or not, every search engine has to comply the law and have the mechanisms available. > I don't know why you're grasping at this 'cost' straw When I have said anything about cost? > And on top of that, now we all know if you've got a search engine gathering data on EU soil you need to comply with EU law Really? Contradicting yourself?
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
jsolson 11y ago
Is it not obvious that you're going to get general-purpose search engines which explicitly do not operate in Europe that exist for the sole purpose of finding information that's been erased from Google under the 'Right to be Forgotten'? In particular, search engines which prioritize/highlight information which has been erased making it easier to find things people wanted to keep hidden? For background checks, I expect a whole cottage industry will spring up of extra-European companies which provide European employers with background information that's hidden on the continent. It's not so much the ideal that the EC holds (that people have a right to be judged on their present rather than on an unaudited collection of searchable details from the past -- an ideal I can agree with), but that there seem to be a surprisingly large number of people who think the strategy they've adopted will actually be effective. It seems blindingly obvious to me (and I expect many other people who have been responding to you) that the inevitable outcome is going to be far far more effective at calling out things people would rather have forgotten than things as they stood before the ruling. To me it seems as if a startlingly large group of people has said, effectively, "this ideal is so important that we must take drastic action that guarantees we can never achieve it".
charonn0 11y ago
> Because that's part of the cost of doing business in the EU where we have laws to protect individuals from companies. This is not an answer to my question. Allow me to clarify: What is the justification for the EU law requiring search engines to cover up the mistakes of others?