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 engin
by 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 agoDo 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 agoI 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 agoAbsolutely 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...