4 ms·
Why doesn't the article address the elephant in the room: the websites that make private information available are at fault here, Google is only the proverbial
by andreasvc 12y ago
Why doesn't the article address the elephant in the room: the websites that make private information available are at fault here, Google is only the proverbial messenger. I'm all for the right to be forgotten, but the problem should be addressed at the source.
- gress 12y agoWhere do those websites get the information from?
- andreasvc 12y agoThat differs on a case-by-case basis. The lawsuit from the submission was apparently about a local paper publishing about the guy losing his home. The problem should have been addressed by local laws regarding whether such information may be published in the first place (or at least without last name).
- brownbat 12y agoSadly, the text of the "right" allows suits against the search engines, and it's easier to find and sue major search engines than the owner of every site returned by results. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/right-to-be-forgotten?em_x=22 http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/privacy-paradox/righ... Safe harbor is an endangered species. Google and Yahoo should spend a day blurring out every name in search results to illustrate the danger of the ruling.
- us0r 12y agoIs it blurring out names or removing results? I'm under the impression they need to remove the page from the results. The shocking thing about this is the actual producers of the data got an explicit walk free pass? I just don't see how that makes any sense.
- brownbat 12y agoYeah, the actual one removes results. There are examples where they just return blank results pages for some people's names. I just thought the blurred names would be a fun trick that would still let people get to content for a day, might raise awareness without alienating as many users.
- AJ007 12y agoIs it a fault that a website publishes news of someone's bankruptcy, or that a certain person was once convicted of a sex crime? This right to be forgotten certainly is not a concept I have every heard anyone advocate for in the US. Credit cards, social security numbers, copyright work, stolen trade secrets, and other sensitive personal information are different. What this EU ruling seems to say is that if anything embarrassing or uncomfortable has ever happened to you in the past it should be erased from the historical record, as if it never occurred. That is kind of like in grade school, being banned by the teacher for reminding another student that they shit their pants.
- the_hangman 12y ago> That is kind of like in grade school, being banned by the teacher for reminding another student that they shit their pants. That is so oddly specific that I have to ask: were you the kid that shit his pants, or the one who had to be told not to remind the kid that he once shat his pants?
- AJ007 12y agoI was the one that continually reminded someone if they ever did anything embarrassing. Usually to the point I was yelled at by a teacher or the individual's own parents.
- AnimalMuppet 12y agoWell, there's also Google cache. If the web site (source) disappears, I can still find it on Google for some time thereafter.
- dredmorbius 12y agoThose sites (largely) only serve traffic by way of Web searches and ad networks. Both of which are far easier to target than fly-by-night pop-up websites. So going after the search engines, advertising networks, hosting providers, and backbone providers makes plenty of sense.