3 ms·

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 trigge

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 12y 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 12y ago
  Taking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.
  - Sanddancer 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.

dasil003 12y 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 12y ago
Taking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.
- Sanddancer 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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 12y 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.