3 ms·
>>Google's claim is that they were not notified of the granted name suppression Yes, that's correct. But Google's policy, as far as I know, is that they publis
by bhartzer 8y ago
>>Google's claim is that they were not notified of the granted name suppression
Yes, that's correct. But Google's policy, as far as I know, is that they publish the information and then, if presented with a court order, they remove it. That's not the right thing for them to do in this case, as once the information is out there it's out there. It's useless to retract it or remove it once it's out there and they've published.
Google needs to change it's policy--or at least they should be proactive and be aware of court orders like this. It's not like the court order was hidden?
- setr 8y agoAs with any interaction with government, I’d bet good money this isn’t at all easy to do, and especially not reliably. I can easily imagine a hundred people assigned to scour thousands of inconsistent court determinations a day, to find who’s been added to the do not name list, which probably doesn’t exist in any list-like fashion...
- bhartzer 8y agoIt would definitely be a tough project--but here in the USA we have PACER, so in theory it could be done. I'm not sure about New Zealand, though.