5 ms·

I sincerely think it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals's rights, but they are overestimating the power of the law. A thing can't be rem

I sincerely think it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals's rights, but they are overestimating the power of the law. A thing can't be removed from the Internet once published, and forcing Google to remove it from their index is at best a middling measure that may slightly limit the exposure of said material. I wish the court would grant me the right to fly as well, but it's beyond their power. I guess they just need a few more decades for the judges to die off and for the new old men to have a better intuitive understanding of the way the digital world works.

icebraining 13y ago
A court can't prevent you from being killed by a car either, but should that mean it shouldn't punish someone driving drunk? Even if that is, at best, a middling measure that may slightly limit the probability of someone getting hit by one? I'm not saying I agree with this decision - I'm on the fence due to the concerns about freedom of speech - but I find that argument unpersuasive.
UweSchmidt 13y ago
The law can be quite powerful, if you think of the length that corporations go these day to ensure compliance - the word "compliance" alone will probably trigger emotions in everyone who has worked in a large company recently. When a CEO could go to prison for something, then the organization will adapt accordingly.
- dasil003 13y ago
  > "the organization" Therein lies the problem. Courts can play whack-a-mole all day, but it's very hard to suppress something on the Internet. The only sensible thing to do is go after the original publisher and then Google takes care of itself. This idea of forcing takedown on search engines is treating the symptom not the disease.
  - izacus 13y ago
    Taking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.
    - Sanddancer 13y ago
      Google only caches for a limited period of time, and also observes robots.txt . So adding a NOARCHIVE directive to the url would get google to flush its cache of the page.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    The difference is that once it's removed from Google/Bing - it's effectively removed from the Internet. That is, the material may still be present, but if you can't find it with a random search, then it's not going to do too much damage. Also - it's much, much, much easier to send a request to "De-Index" to two, large, organized, law-abiding organizations (Google/Microsoft) - than it would be to try and remove content from umpteen million various websites - that would be whack-a-mole.
    - magicalist 13y ago
      This sounds a whole lot like the argument of the Recording, Movie, and other IP Industries of the world against safe harbor provisions. Why should they have to play whack-a-mole when then could get the government/your ISP/search engines of the world to do their work for them?
      - ghshephard 13y ago
        Correct - and indeed, Google/Bing respond to DMCA (and other takedown) requests all the time. Removing content from search engines (for some definition of search engine. I.E. Bing, Google, PirateBay, etc...) for, 99% of the population, does remove it from the internet.
ghshephard 13y ago
"forcing Google to remove it from their index is at best a middling measure " I think you underestimate the power of search engines - simply having Bing/Google remove a reference to something, will eliminate it from view for 99%+ of the population. It's a lot more than a middling measure.
- dasil003 13y ago
  Does Google have 99%+ marketshare? Will they always?
  - DasIch 13y ago
    Presumably this applies to all search engines. In any case Google has larger market share in the EU than in the US, it's 99% marketshare is probably not far off.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    I'd be willing to wager that 99%+ of all free-text searches go through one of Bing (which also powers Yahoo) or Google.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    As long as the set of search engines that do have 99% marketshare are fairly few and reachable through EU courts in this fashion, then it won't matter what the market share of #1 is.
- dan_bk 13y ago
  A lot of people would probably fail to reach "their Facebook" if it wasn't for Google...
cstross 13y ago
I sincerely think it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals's rights, but they are overestimating the power of the law. By your logic, it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals' rights not to be murdered in their homes, but they are overestimating the power of the law by making murdering people in their homes a crime. You're mistaking the internet (a human construct) for the laws of physics (gravity, your point about the right to fly).

icebraining 13y ago

A court can't prevent you from being killed by a car either, but should that mean it shouldn't punish someone driving drunk? Even if that is, at best, a middling measure that may slightly limit the probability of someone getting hit by one? I'm not saying I agree with this decision - I'm on the fence due to the concerns about freedom of speech - but I find that argument unpersuasive.

UweSchmidt 13y ago

The law can be quite powerful, if you think of the length that corporations go these day to ensure compliance - the word "compliance" alone will probably trigger emotions in everyone who has worked in a large company recently. When a CEO could go to prison for something, then the organization will adapt accordingly.

dasil003 13y ago
> "the organization" Therein lies the problem. Courts can play whack-a-mole all day, but it's very hard to suppress something on the Internet. The only sensible thing to do is go after the original publisher and then Google takes care of itself. This idea of forcing takedown on search engines is treating the symptom not the disease.
- izacus 13y ago
  Taking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.
  - Sanddancer 13y ago
    Google only caches for a limited period of time, and also observes robots.txt . So adding a NOARCHIVE directive to the url would get google to flush its cache of the page.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  The difference is that once it's removed from Google/Bing - it's effectively removed from the Internet. That is, the material may still be present, but if you can't find it with a random search, then it's not going to do too much damage. Also - it's much, much, much easier to send a request to "De-Index" to two, large, organized, law-abiding organizations (Google/Microsoft) - than it would be to try and remove content from umpteen million various websites - that would be whack-a-mole.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    This sounds a whole lot like the argument of the Recording, Movie, and other IP Industries of the world against safe harbor provisions. Why should they have to play whack-a-mole when then could get the government/your ISP/search engines of the world to do their work for them?
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      Correct - and indeed, Google/Bing respond to DMCA (and other takedown) requests all the time. Removing content from search engines (for some definition of search engine. I.E. Bing, Google, PirateBay, etc...) for, 99% of the population, does remove it from the internet.

ghshephard 13y ago

"forcing Google to remove it from their index is at best a middling measure " I think you underestimate the power of search engines - simply having Bing/Google remove a reference to something, will eliminate it from view for 99%+ of the population. It's a lot more than a middling measure.

dasil003 13y ago
Does Google have 99%+ marketshare? Will they always?
- DasIch 13y ago
  Presumably this applies to all search engines. In any case Google has larger market share in the EU than in the US, it's 99% marketshare is probably not far off.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  I'd be willing to wager that 99%+ of all free-text searches go through one of Bing (which also powers Yahoo) or Google.
- mpyne 13y ago
  As long as the set of search engines that do have 99% marketshare are fairly few and reachable through EU courts in this fashion, then it won't matter what the market share of #1 is.
dan_bk 13y ago
A lot of people would probably fail to reach "their Facebook" if it wasn't for Google...

cstross 13y ago

I sincerely think it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals's rights, but they are overestimating the power of the law. By your logic, it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals' rights not to be murdered in their homes, but they are overestimating the power of the law by making murdering people in their homes a crime. You're mistaking the internet (a human construct) for the laws of physics (gravity, your point about the right to fly).