5 ms·

This is a good thing. If something terrible is posted online and it is true but it hurts nobody if you take it down, it seems like common courtesy to not repea

This is a good thing. If something terrible is posted online and it is true but it hurts nobody if you take it down, it seems like common courtesy to not repeat it. You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual. It's not clear cut and dry. There are things you choose not to say in real life, even if the are true. Just because something is on the internet does not preclude you from that courtesy and respect. Technical reasons (such as caches) can be used as an excuse to act respectably. You do not go around telling colleagues at work about what other colleagues have done. What would you have to gain? Imagine if you had relations with someone and it was recorded online. The allegations might be true but who has more right for that information to be left up there for all to find? Should you be allowed to post all you like about others, disregarding the potential effects on that person? Or should you be thoughtful about what is in the public interest? Now imagine a site that records who had relations with whom. There is no maliciousness in this one: it's more of a public record or encyclopedia. Do you have the right to opt out of it? To go further with my example. Imagine having a sexually transmitted infectious disease. Is the answer the same?

fleitz 12y ago
Yes, if you had an STD 16 years ago and have dealt with it, it would seem reasonable to have that taken down, or moved off the front page. It may even be reasonable to have medical records taken down carte blanche.
EvanKelly 12y ago
I think placing the onus on google for this is the wrong precedent and I think it speaks to the public and the court's misunderstanding of what a search engine does. If this man had problems with his debts being online, he should have contacted/sued the sites which displayed this data. This is like suing TV Guide because there's a show on tv that is offensive to you.
- ronaldx 12y ago
  > I think placing the onus on google for this is the wrong precedent and I think it speaks to the public and the court's misunderstanding of what a search engine does. I also think it's wrong that they didn't sanction the original publisher, which makes far more sense as a solution. However, Google should be subject to the laws of Data Protection - a search engine is, in some sense, a data repository that may handle personal data. It is unlike TV Guide in this respect.
  - EvanKelly 12y ago
    Do you think search engines should be proactively or reactively responsible for not displaying personal information? I mean, this stuff is literally in news articles about the guy, there's really no way to proactively not index articles which "affect someone's honor or dignity".
  - Goronmon 12y ago
    I also think it's wrong that they didn't sanction the original publisher, which makes far more sense as a solution. The original publisher is fine in this case because the information is perfectly correct. Which is what makes this case particularly asinine.
    - ronaldx 12y ago
      Absolutely not so. That's not how free speech works in the EU, and that's not what the court ruling says. EU citizens have a general right to information privacy. The original publisher was "...legally justified as [the publication] took place upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and was intended to give maximum publicity to the auction..." My understanding: La Vanguardia (exclusively) gained the legal right to process private information for (only) this specific reason - but Google processed the private information without that legal right. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=152065&doclang=EN http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=152...
Goronmon 12y ago
This is a good thing. Censorship is never a good thing. Just because you don't like information being made public, doesn't mean that you should be able to get the government to force other people to hide that information (assuming the information itself isn't illegal). If I steal money from your house, and I'm arrested and sent to jail, should I be allowed to have Google remove any information related to that from search results? You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual. Exactly, and in this case you've put the desire of any given individual over the needs of the public interest.
- gress 12y ago
  Google is not a public institution.
  - VikingCoder 12y ago
    This is the Spanish government ordering Google to censor information. That is the very definition of censorship.
    - gress 12y ago
      Defamation is a well established cause for legally compelling people to change the way they represent others.
      - VikingCoder 12y ago
        You go after the primary source of the information. Not the mechanically computed index of primary sources.
        gress 12y ago
        What justifies giving the searchers an advantage that the victims don't have?
        12y ago
VikingCoder 12y ago
> common courtesy Common courtesy should not be encoded into law. If you type the current year into your calculator, and then hit subtract, and then you type the year I was born in to your calculator, it shows you how old I am. But that's protected information! You could use that to discriminate against me! Texas Instruments, must modify their SUBTRACTION ALGORITHM to not show how old I am!!! Google is just a SEARCH ALGORITHM.
- gress 12y ago
  Google is just a search algorithm in the same way that a gun is just a convenient way to move pieces of lead around.
  - VikingCoder 12y ago
    You don't blame a gun for someone getting shot. You shouldn't blame Google for indexing information and displaying it when queried.
    - gress 12y ago
      No - you don't blame the gun. You blame the operator. That is exactly what is happening in this case.
      - VikingCoder 12y ago
        A SITE POSTS INFORMATION. ...Google indexes it... Go after the site that posted the information!!! Posting the information on a web server is the offensive and harmful act. Mechanically creating an index of information on web servers is not.
        gress 12y ago
        So you were wrong about the gun analogy and are ignoring the point that the operators are responsible for what Google does.
je_bailey 12y ago
To answer your question, yes I should have the right to post a statement that you don't like. I should be able to express myself, make an observation, re-iterate a fact, without censure.
- axanoeychron 12y ago
  What if your statement is false?
bryanlarsen 12y ago
If something should be taken down, it should be taken down at the source. In this case, the newspaper was allowed to leave the article online, but Google was forced to stop linking to the article.

fleitz 12y ago

Yes, if you had an STD 16 years ago and have dealt with it, it would seem reasonable to have that taken down, or moved off the front page. It may even be reasonable to have medical records taken down carte blanche.

EvanKelly 12y ago

I think placing the onus on google for this is the wrong precedent and I think it speaks to the public and the court's misunderstanding of what a search engine does. If this man had problems with his debts being online, he should have contacted/sued the sites which displayed this data. This is like suing TV Guide because there's a show on tv that is offensive to you.

ronaldx 12y ago
> I think placing the onus on google for this is the wrong precedent and I think it speaks to the public and the court's misunderstanding of what a search engine does. I also think it's wrong that they didn't sanction the original publisher, which makes far more sense as a solution. However, Google should be subject to the laws of Data Protection - a search engine is, in some sense, a data repository that may handle personal data. It is unlike TV Guide in this respect.
- EvanKelly 12y ago
  Do you think search engines should be proactively or reactively responsible for not displaying personal information? I mean, this stuff is literally in news articles about the guy, there's really no way to proactively not index articles which "affect someone's honor or dignity".
- Goronmon 12y ago
  I also think it's wrong that they didn't sanction the original publisher, which makes far more sense as a solution. The original publisher is fine in this case because the information is perfectly correct. Which is what makes this case particularly asinine.
  - ronaldx 12y ago
    Absolutely not so. That's not how free speech works in the EU, and that's not what the court ruling says. EU citizens have a general right to information privacy. The original publisher was "...legally justified as [the publication] took place upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and was intended to give maximum publicity to the auction..." My understanding: La Vanguardia (exclusively) gained the legal right to process private information for (only) this specific reason - but Google processed the private information without that legal right. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=152065&doclang=EN http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=152...

Goronmon 12y ago

This is a good thing. Censorship is never a good thing. Just because you don't like information being made public, doesn't mean that you should be able to get the government to force other people to hide that information (assuming the information itself isn't illegal). If I steal money from your house, and I'm arrested and sent to jail, should I be allowed to have Google remove any information related to that from search results? You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual. Exactly, and in this case you've put the desire of any given individual over the needs of the public interest.

gress 12y ago
Google is not a public institution.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  This is the Spanish government ordering Google to censor information. That is the very definition of censorship.
  - gress 12y ago
    Defamation is a well established cause for legally compelling people to change the way they represent others.
    - VikingCoder 12y ago
      You go after the primary source of the information. Not the mechanically computed index of primary sources.
      - gress 12y ago
        What justifies giving the searchers an advantage that the victims don't have?
        12y ago

VikingCoder 12y ago

> common courtesy Common courtesy should not be encoded into law. If you type the current year into your calculator, and then hit subtract, and then you type the year I was born in to your calculator, it shows you how old I am. But that's protected information! You could use that to discriminate against me! Texas Instruments, must modify their SUBTRACTION ALGORITHM to not show how old I am!!! Google is just a SEARCH ALGORITHM.

gress 12y ago
Google is just a search algorithm in the same way that a gun is just a convenient way to move pieces of lead around.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  You don't blame a gun for someone getting shot. You shouldn't blame Google for indexing information and displaying it when queried.
  - gress 12y ago
    No - you don't blame the gun. You blame the operator. That is exactly what is happening in this case.
    - VikingCoder 12y ago
      A SITE POSTS INFORMATION. ...Google indexes it... Go after the site that posted the information!!! Posting the information on a web server is the offensive and harmful act. Mechanically creating an index of information on web servers is not.
      - gress 12y ago
        So you were wrong about the gun analogy and are ignoring the point that the operators are responsible for what Google does.

je_bailey 12y ago

To answer your question, yes I should have the right to post a statement that you don't like. I should be able to express myself, make an observation, re-iterate a fact, without censure.

axanoeychron 12y ago
What if your statement is false?

bryanlarsen 12y ago

If something should be taken down, it should be taken down at the source. In this case, the newspaper was allowed to leave the article online, but Google was forced to stop linking to the article.