6 ms·
> Google says a removal request will be considered if the search result in question includes the presence of “explicit or implicit threats” or “explicit or impl
by andrewgioia 4y ago
> Google says a removal request will be considered if the search result in question includes the presence of “explicit or implicit threats” or “explicit or implicit calls to action for others to harm or harass.”
Apparently they've always had a process for bank account info and other related things, but I can't get some of the newly included items, like login credentials, removed unless I can show actual or implicit threats of harm?
- no-dr-onboard 4y agoI wonder what the standards are to verify this. Can I just sockpuppet a twitter account calling for my harassment and then use that as proof of targeting? IMO there should be as few barriers to entry as possible with something like this.
- stult 4y agoCool new business model, harassment as a service. We‘ll get your info off google for the low low price of $1.99 per fake death threat
- reaperducer 4y agoI hear ads on the radio for "reputation management" companies that, in part, use similar methods.
- vlunkr 4y agoI'm implicitly threatened by a multi-billion dollar corporation making my personal information available publicly and refusing to remove it unless I have evidence of explicit or implicit threats.
- Teandw 4y agoTechnically they haven't made your personal information available publicly. It was already public if Google managed to get their hands on it. They've just made it easier to find.
- reaperducer 4y agoGoogle buys 90% of credit card transactions. That's not public information. And the only way to opt out of it is to not use credit cards.
- DaltonCoffee 4y agoDo they publicly index this information tho?
- reaperducer 4y agoDoes it matter? Is it somehow OK for someone to build a dossier on another person as long as they use that information for their own purposes?
- Teandw 4y agoWell, yes. Because you're talking about a different scenario than what is going on here.
- alar44 4y agoYes? Are you telling me I can't know things about people?
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoYou won't get your mitts on their video rental records. We need another embarrassing data breach to get more protections.
- dylan604 4y agoIs this still true? Nobody goes to Blockbuster to rent videos. Videos are streamed to you on a plethora of devices. Does the video rental regulations apply to YouTube sharing your video selections? PornHub? Netflix?
- throwaway0220 4y ago> "...unless I have evidence of explicit or implicit threats." It seems you're misreading the policy. See my comment above [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31210455 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31210455
- dannysullivan 4y agoI work for Google Search. We're working to clear this up. Threat is not required to remove the listed PII. I'll repeat what I shared in another comment here: There is NO requirement of threat to remove anything listed as personally identifiable information on this page (such as personal contact info, medical records, login credentials, etc): https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9673730 https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9673730 Beyond those things listed, in some cases someone who is being threatened might feel there's additional information that someone might feel is somehow personally identifying. This is where the doxxing/threat option can be used, for something not on the list where no threat is required. Appreciate this is confusing to some; we'll be looking at how to clarify that.
- andrewgioia 4y agoThanks I really appreciate the clarification, this is a great addition.
- donthellbanme 4y ago"We generally aim to preserve information access if the content is determined to be of public interest. This includes but isn't limited to: Content on or from government and other official sources Newsworthy content Professionally-relevant content" 1. This removal process does not remove those public information aggregator sites, like "Who lives here.whatever", "Didthispersoneverappearincourt.com". The problem with the court aggregator sites is they are wrong some times. I imagine Google makes a ton of money off them though? 2. Google should remove all personal details, unless a person was in the news. 3. I'm on the fence whether you should even index sites like Yelp.com?
- dannysullivan 4y agoThird-party sites that republish public information are not exempt from this. IE: say a government site publishes personal info as public record. Our policy doesn't allow removal of the government pages. But if a third-party republishes, our policy does allow removal of those.
- 4y ago