6 ms·

Seems like a dangerous precedent.

e40 12y ago
I disagree. I have a friend that had some crazy person badmouthing him on various usenet groups. It really bummed him out because when you googled his name, you'd see all those things first. Replace "usenet" with "blog" and you could have the same problem today.
- proexploit 12y ago
  What if your friend has actually done something wrong though, for example, scammed multiple clients out of money? Giving them the ability to remove that information means future clients can't get a fair warning. I'm not knowledgeable about the concept as a whole to have a strong opinion yet but it seems like there's plenty of times I think something should remain public even if a person doesn't want it. If someone posts something false, we have legal systems to handle that complaint. It's not perfect but this seems more dangerous.
- throwaway420 12y ago
  It almost seems backwards until you stop and think about it, but the existence of these kinds of laws actually makes this problem worse for most people. There is no way for anybody without significant means to continuously monitor the internet for negative search results and then continuously sick lawyers on publishers, search engines, blogs, websites, and forums to get this stuff removed. And even with unlimited means, there really is no way to put some facts back in the bottle once it's been unveiled. The existence of this kind of law makes it much more likely that most people will automatically believe anything negative that they read on the internet about you because then otherwise they'd assume that you'd be able to get lawyers to remove it. Right now, today, there's a hint of doubt about the veracity of anything on the internet, and that's actually a good thing for people who have been unfairly attacked. But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about online. This is a net loss not only for freedom, but for most people who have negative search results.
  - gress 12y ago
    > But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about online. How is this true?
- spinlock 12y ago
  replace 'usenet' with 'search engine' and .... your point makes no sense. Your friend should have the slanderous comments removed from Usenet's servers (and mirrors). Then, when Google Search crawls them again, they won't show up in _search_ results. If, on the other hand, you just stop search engines from showing the results _that are on Usenet_, you haven't fixed anything, you've just buried your head in the sand.
genericuser 12y ago
I agree, as it seems like it allows people to basically curate their google results so that only positive things appear about them. I agree there should be circumstances where content should be removed from indexes but if the content publisher is not required to remove it, and it is legal content, why should google or other search engine providers have to stop indexing it? What I believe would be a functional system would be that a court order for the content publisher to take down the content should also require google to quit indexing the content, so cached versions aren't able to be found and in case the publisher doesn't comply. But that having a ruling that google has to act as a gatekeeper to legal and already public content about an individual because they feel it is not relevant any longer does seem like a dangerous precedent.
- joshlegs 12y ago
  Really, this is an age-old problem. Journalists have had to deal with this for years. The general consensus was that if it's true, tough crap. The difference between journalism and google is that anybody can google someone. Journalists generally had to spend a lot of time digging up someone's past. The "problem" is just how efficient Google (and other web crawlers) have been at aggregating data. And I'm kind of on the fence about that
- thirdsun 12y ago
  Exactly, it's actually quite similar to those infamous porn dns filters. If there is a plausible reason why not remove the source? The ruling as I understand it just alters the map while the city is still there.
fleitz 12y ago
First, it's not a precedent, Google filters search results to comply with the law in pretty much every jurisdiction, in Europe they are already filtering Maps to comply with local individual privacy law. In the US these are frequently DMCA requests, and in Europe frequently anti-hate requests. In Europe they simply have found a more expansive view of privacy than that of the US. If there's a precedent here it's a pretty minor one.
- spinlock 12y ago
  The case was about google displaying search results of data that others had posted online. It was not about taking down data that google was hosting (eg DMCA). This is a case of shooting the messenger and leaving the person sending the messages alone.
- genericuser 12y ago
  Your argument about this being a precedent goes counter to what the article itself says. I honestly have no idea whether you are correct in your judgement about whether this is a precedent but it seems like this is a complaint about the article more than the post you replied to. "According to The Guardian, the case will be used as a precedent in more than 200 cases pending in Spain's court system; in many of them, plaintiffs are asking for links to be deleted."

e40 12y ago

I disagree. I have a friend that had some crazy person badmouthing him on various usenet groups. It really bummed him out because when you googled his name, you'd see all those things first. Replace "usenet" with "blog" and you could have the same problem today.

proexploit 12y ago
What if your friend has actually done something wrong though, for example, scammed multiple clients out of money? Giving them the ability to remove that information means future clients can't get a fair warning. I'm not knowledgeable about the concept as a whole to have a strong opinion yet but it seems like there's plenty of times I think something should remain public even if a person doesn't want it. If someone posts something false, we have legal systems to handle that complaint. It's not perfect but this seems more dangerous.
throwaway420 12y ago
It almost seems backwards until you stop and think about it, but the existence of these kinds of laws actually makes this problem worse for most people. There is no way for anybody without significant means to continuously monitor the internet for negative search results and then continuously sick lawyers on publishers, search engines, blogs, websites, and forums to get this stuff removed. And even with unlimited means, there really is no way to put some facts back in the bottle once it's been unveiled. The existence of this kind of law makes it much more likely that most people will automatically believe anything negative that they read on the internet about you because then otherwise they'd assume that you'd be able to get lawyers to remove it. Right now, today, there's a hint of doubt about the veracity of anything on the internet, and that's actually a good thing for people who have been unfairly attacked. But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about online. This is a net loss not only for freedom, but for most people who have negative search results.
- gress 12y ago
  > But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about online. How is this true?
spinlock 12y ago
replace 'usenet' with 'search engine' and .... your point makes no sense. Your friend should have the slanderous comments removed from Usenet's servers (and mirrors). Then, when Google Search crawls them again, they won't show up in _search_ results. If, on the other hand, you just stop search engines from showing the results _that are on Usenet_, you haven't fixed anything, you've just buried your head in the sand.

genericuser 12y ago

I agree, as it seems like it allows people to basically curate their google results so that only positive things appear about them. I agree there should be circumstances where content should be removed from indexes but if the content publisher is not required to remove it, and it is legal content, why should google or other search engine providers have to stop indexing it? What I believe would be a functional system would be that a court order for the content publisher to take down the content should also require google to quit indexing the content, so cached versions aren't able to be found and in case the publisher doesn't comply. But that having a ruling that google has to act as a gatekeeper to legal and already public content about an individual because they feel it is not relevant any longer does seem like a dangerous precedent.

joshlegs 12y ago
Really, this is an age-old problem. Journalists have had to deal with this for years. The general consensus was that if it's true, tough crap. The difference between journalism and google is that anybody can google someone. Journalists generally had to spend a lot of time digging up someone's past. The "problem" is just how efficient Google (and other web crawlers) have been at aggregating data. And I'm kind of on the fence about that
thirdsun 12y ago
Exactly, it's actually quite similar to those infamous porn dns filters. If there is a plausible reason why not remove the source? The ruling as I understand it just alters the map while the city is still there.

fleitz 12y ago

First, it's not a precedent, Google filters search results to comply with the law in pretty much every jurisdiction, in Europe they are already filtering Maps to comply with local individual privacy law. In the US these are frequently DMCA requests, and in Europe frequently anti-hate requests. In Europe they simply have found a more expansive view of privacy than that of the US. If there's a precedent here it's a pretty minor one.

spinlock 12y ago
The case was about google displaying search results of data that others had posted online. It was not about taking down data that google was hosting (eg DMCA). This is a case of shooting the messenger and leaving the person sending the messages alone.
genericuser 12y ago
Your argument about this being a precedent goes counter to what the article itself says. I honestly have no idea whether you are correct in your judgement about whether this is a precedent but it seems like this is a complaint about the article more than the post you replied to. "According to The Guardian, the case will be used as a precedent in more than 200 cases pending in Spain's court system; in many of them, plaintiffs are asking for links to be deleted."