5 ms·

List of BBC Web Pages Removed from Google's Search Results During July 2019

55 points by infodocket 7y ago

kwhitefoot 7y ago
Are there other lists of removed pages? Is there a way of searching inside such lists?
akadruid1 7y ago
This shows up again that the "right to be forgotten" is again primarily being used by the rich and powerful to whitewash previous crimes. One example which occurs multiple times in the BBC article is the disgraced but wealthy former UK cabinet minister Chris Huhne, who was released early from luxury prison and parachuted into a cushy job in the industry he was supposed to be regulating as a minister. He and his partner have repeatedly tried to use the courts to silence media coverage of them, and the courts have ruled against them every time. So now they've gone to Google instead for a cover up with less oversight.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  If I had novel 21st century EU civil rights extended to me, it would mean I was rich and powerful enough to have bought one of their passports and this is exactly one thing I would do Sounds awesome
- riku_iki 7y ago
  > Chris Huhne mentioning his name here will make this thread undiscoverable through search engine?..
eythian 7y ago
Amusing but not surprising that the 2018 list of removed URLs is in this list.
philpem 7y ago
Interesting that the top stories are related to a former cabinet minister being jailed for perverting the course of justice. Part of me says that there's a public good argument for a search engine consisting solely of news stories which have been removed from Google.
DanBC 7y ago
Google need to pay more attention to Chris Huhne. He was convicted for perverting the course of justice. He got an 8 month sentence. He was a public figure in a position of responsibility when he committed this crime. The judge in the case said that Huhne risked a damaged image if he admitted to the driving offence. The crime came to light after he had an affair - his partner sought revenge by revealing his part in the crime. These are not trivial things. This is not the everyday mistakes that regular people make. This isn't a kid doing stupid shit. It is right and proper that the search results are not subject to right to be forgotten, at least until the conviction is spent. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-pryce-huhne-sentencing-remarks/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-pryce-huhne-sentencin... https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-vasiliki-pryce-and-christopher-huhne/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-vasiliki-pryce-and-ch...
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  What is Google supposed to do?
butler14 7y ago
A disproportionate amount related to convicted criminals: rapists, fraudsters, murderers. Seems like a popular service for such folk. Who'd have thunk it.
- xamolxix 7y ago
  I would assume the same applies to the right to remain silent.
- tveita 7y ago
  There is a lot of that, but I also see stories about people who have been held by the police and then let go, and people who have been interviewed about stigmatised health issues. It's reasonable that they don't want these stories to be the first thing potential employers see when they google them.
martokus 7y ago
I wonder if someone can build something similar to https://haveibeenpwned.com/ https://haveibeenpwned.com/ to preserve those pages and create a centralised archive?! Otherwise murderers and fraudsters get a clear start
tabtab 7y ago
YouTube has been censoring sports-combat-robot videos (AKA "battle-bots") from YouTube because apparently their animal-fighting-detection algorithm is mistaking robots for animals. Battle-bot fans are pissed and are testing alternatives to YouTube. Google has been under pressure by politicians to "clean up" violent and privacy-related content, and it seems they decided that false positives are a smaller risk for their business than letting riff-raff through.
- gundmc 7y ago
  Totally unrelated to this topic which revolves around the "Right to be forgotten".

55 points by infodocket 7y ago

Are there other lists of removed pages? Is there a way of searching inside such lists?

This shows up again that the "right to be forgotten" is again primarily being used by the rich and powerful to whitewash previous crimes. One example which occurs multiple times in the BBC article is the disgraced but wealthy former UK cabinet minister Chris Huhne, who was released early from luxury prison and parachuted into a cushy job in the industry he was supposed to be regulating as a minister. He and his partner have repeatedly tried to use the courts to silence media coverage of them, and the courts have ruled against them every time. So now they've gone to Google instead for a cover up with less oversight.

rolltiide 7y ago
If I had novel 21st century EU civil rights extended to me, it would mean I was rich and powerful enough to have bought one of their passports and this is exactly one thing I would do Sounds awesome
riku_iki 7y ago
> Chris Huhne mentioning his name here will make this thread undiscoverable through search engine?..

eythian 7y ago

Amusing but not surprising that the 2018 list of removed URLs is in this list.

philpem 7y ago

Interesting that the top stories are related to a former cabinet minister being jailed for perverting the course of justice. Part of me says that there's a public good argument for a search engine consisting solely of news stories which have been removed from Google.

DanBC 7y ago

Google need to pay more attention to Chris Huhne. He was convicted for perverting the course of justice. He got an 8 month sentence. He was a public figure in a position of responsibility when he committed this crime. The judge in the case said that Huhne risked a damaged image if he admitted to the driving offence. The crime came to light after he had an affair - his partner sought revenge by revealing his part in the crime. These are not trivial things. This is not the everyday mistakes that regular people make. This isn't a kid doing stupid shit. It is right and proper that the search results are not subject to right to be forgotten, at least until the conviction is spent. https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-pryce-huhne-sentencing-remarks/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-pryce-huhne-sentencin... https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-vasiliki-pryce-and-christopher-huhne/ https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-v-vasiliki-pryce-and-ch...

skinnymuch 7y ago
What is Google supposed to do?

butler14 7y ago

A disproportionate amount related to convicted criminals: rapists, fraudsters, murderers. Seems like a popular service for such folk. Who'd have thunk it.

xamolxix 7y ago
I would assume the same applies to the right to remain silent.
tveita 7y ago
There is a lot of that, but I also see stories about people who have been held by the police and then let go, and people who have been interviewed about stigmatised health issues. It's reasonable that they don't want these stories to be the first thing potential employers see when they google them.

martokus 7y ago

I wonder if someone can build something similar to https://haveibeenpwned.com/ https://haveibeenpwned.com/ to preserve those pages and create a centralised archive?! Otherwise murderers and fraudsters get a clear start

tabtab 7y ago

YouTube has been censoring sports-combat-robot videos (AKA "battle-bots") from YouTube because apparently their animal-fighting-detection algorithm is mistaking robots for animals. Battle-bot fans are pissed and are testing alternatives to YouTube. Google has been under pressure by politicians to "clean up" violent and privacy-related content, and it seems they decided that false positives are a smaller risk for their business than letting riff-raff through.

gundmc 7y ago
Totally unrelated to this topic which revolves around the "Right to be forgotten".