3 ms·

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

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...

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...