4 ms·

Oh those poor search engines, making billions of dollars having to have the decency to let private individuals not have to have their lives opened up to casual

Oh those poor search engines, making billions of dollars having to have the decency to let private individuals not have to have their lives opened up to casual searches on the internet 24/7. What a tragedy! I for one have NO DESIRE for my children to grow up in a world where they do not have control over information about themselves on the internet. I can only pray this sensible law makes it to North America. For those downvoting - are you a shill for Google? Try reading the form itself to appreciate how exceedingly reasonable it is: A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union found that certain users can ask search engines to remove results for queries that include their name where those results are “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed.” In implementing this decision, we will assess each individual request and attempt to balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information. When evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about you, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information—for example, information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials.

llii 12y ago
> where they do not have control over information about themselves on the internet The biggest gripe for me about this thing is that removing a link from google doesn't remove it from the website itself. But people think they're safe once the can't find it via Google because Google is all they know. Especially in the age of removing URLs from the browsers input field and all.
- Vik1ng 12y ago
  > But people think they're safe once the can't find it via Google because Google is all they know. But the same is probably true for the average person looking for it. A small Employer might look trough a few results to see if can find something about a applicant, but he is not going to do some big reasearch.
- bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  Hey, here's a surprise: the law also applies to the website itself. Just because the person who brought the suit targeted Google first (which is not strange, given that Google collects and re-publishes that information in a way that makes it immeasurably more accessible and "public" than the original publication) doesn't make the everybody else exempt. The only valid debate her is if Google significantly adds to the damage, or if Google's search engine is just a neutral utility. I would say the answer to that is pretty f-ing obvious. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Today, Google's search results and interface are so thoroughly manipulated (not just for profit but also for political/ideological reasons) that it counts as a curated publication. The fact that Google uses algorithms instead of humans for most of that curation doesn't absolve them from responsibility for the result.
  - peterwiese 12y ago
    Thank you for bringing reason in here.
ars 12y ago
People aren't complaining about the idea of removing private information. They are complaining that you are just removing it from google. The info is still there! And not only that, it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it. Which makes it as stupid of a law as the one about cookies: Make it look like you are helping privacy while actually doing nothing of any value. Anyone from the EU who wants the full scoop about someone will just use the US google site, making this a completely pointless exercise.
- MzHN 12y ago
  >it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it Where is this information from? Sounds a bit strange, but I guess it could be true. It's not the first time big companies say "f u" to these rulings.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    Given the disaster this is likely to inflict on search results if scaled up, and the fact that it's not required in America, do you really think they'll make the whole global search engine work this way? Or do you think they'll do the same thing as done in every other case where some stupid country requires censorship: block based on domain name or IP address? Historically, for Europe it's been done via domain name. Doing it via IP address would not be any more effective though: there'd immediately be dozens of proxy sites set up running in the US that simply forward the search to the US Google and return the results. Short of building an equivalent to the Chinese Great Firewall and blocking all encrypted traffic, or forcing Google to apply European cenorship globally, there's no way to stop Europeans who want regular results pages from getting them.
- throwaway7767 12y ago
  > And not only that, it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it Do you have a reference that confirms this? I have not seen it mentioned in any of the articles about this issue.
- krbbltr 12y ago
x0x0 12y ago
You'll note this is the privacy that Eric Schmidt already enjoys, or at least believes he should enjoy, whether it's using lawyers to get one his many mistresses' blog yanked from the internet [1], or when he tried to get his political donations pulled from google search: Mr. Schmidt, Google’s outspoken chief who will be replaced by Mr. Page on Monday, has made public gaffes when speaking about privacy. Mr. Levy reveals that he has made gaffes inside the company, too. Mr. Schmidt asked that Google remove from the search engine information about a political donation he had made. Sheryl Sandberg, a Google executive who is now Facebook’s chief operating officer, told him that was unacceptable. [2] And of course, there is always his infamous suggestion that people should change their name when they turn eighteen, in part to avoid google reporting every dumb thing they did as a child. It's hard to say whether he's a sociopath or an entitled asshole, so I suggest compromise: he's an entitled sociopathic asshole. [1] http://gawker.com/5477611/googles-ceo-demanded-his-mistress-take-down-her-blog-source http://gawker.com/5477611/googles-ceo-demanded-his-mistress-... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01author.html?_r=4&ref=technology& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01author.html?_r=...
- Aloisius 12y ago
  I don't see why it is Google's responsibility to act as a censor. After all if there is truly a right to be forgotten (which is wonderful news to a great number of criminals and future politicians), you should go after the origin of the information, not the index.
spindritf 12y ago
The search engines aren't the ones losing out. This will not impact their bottom line. We, the users, are missing out on the completeness of our search results. You already have no control over information about you. It has always been like that, people have been gossiping since the dawn of language. If something was published, then it should be in the index. If you don't like it, take it up with the publisher. This is just like those ridiculous rulings on copyright infringement by linking to a copyrighted work. And yes, everyone who downvotes you is a shill for Google at 0.2$/downvote. There's just no other explanation.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "If something was published, then it should be in the index." We already make exceptions for certain things (illegal content). Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere - it's just a matter of where we draw it. >> "We, the users, are missing out on the completeness of our search results." With this law AFAIK content cannot be removed if that would be against the public good. So, for example, a politician can't have an article that makes the look bad but is true removed. Technically, although no longer 'complete', the quality of your search results should not be hit. The only results being removed are ones which are incorrect and damaging to someone. >> "If you don't like it, take it up with the publisher." AFAIK with this law the publisher has to remove it too. Google is involved because they cache pages which can include deleted content.
  - seren 12y ago
    Actually, it was not removed from the newspaper archive, because the article referring Mr. Gonzalez was published under a judicial injunction. And so his request was rejected by the Spanish court of data protection. But the case was upheld against Google. Full EU court ruling in the following link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=116214 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc... I think the case make a distinction between a newspaper publication that is rather ephemeral and spatially located vs a search engine that plays a big part in disseminating information or any other "data processor" that can potentially expose the information for ever. The crux of the argument seems to be that even if you are only indexing, by definition, you are managing/duplicating data, and in some case, they are private data so you have a responsibility before the person being identified (the "data subject").
chrismcb 12y ago
Who decides what is inadequate or irrelevant? Search engines just index the web. If you have an issue with some stuff on the web, then go after the person hosting it, not the person telling you where it is. This is akin to shooting the messenger.

llii 12y ago

> where they do not have control over information about themselves on the internet The biggest gripe for me about this thing is that removing a link from google doesn't remove it from the website itself. But people think they're safe once the can't find it via Google because Google is all they know. Especially in the age of removing URLs from the browsers input field and all.

Vik1ng 12y ago
> But people think they're safe once the can't find it via Google because Google is all they know. But the same is probably true for the average person looking for it. A small Employer might look trough a few results to see if can find something about a applicant, but he is not going to do some big reasearch.
bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Hey, here's a surprise: the law also applies to the website itself. Just because the person who brought the suit targeted Google first (which is not strange, given that Google collects and re-publishes that information in a way that makes it immeasurably more accessible and "public" than the original publication) doesn't make the everybody else exempt. The only valid debate her is if Google significantly adds to the damage, or if Google's search engine is just a neutral utility. I would say the answer to that is pretty f-ing obvious. That ship has sailed a long time ago. Today, Google's search results and interface are so thoroughly manipulated (not just for profit but also for political/ideological reasons) that it counts as a curated publication. The fact that Google uses algorithms instead of humans for most of that curation doesn't absolve them from responsibility for the result.
- peterwiese 12y ago
  Thank you for bringing reason in here.

ars 12y ago

People aren't complaining about the idea of removing private information. They are complaining that you are just removing it from google. The info is still there! And not only that, it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it. Which makes it as stupid of a law as the one about cookies: Make it look like you are helping privacy while actually doing nothing of any value. Anyone from the EU who wants the full scoop about someone will just use the US google site, making this a completely pointless exercise.

MzHN 12y ago
>it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it Where is this information from? Sounds a bit strange, but I guess it could be true. It's not the first time big companies say "f u" to these rulings.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Given the disaster this is likely to inflict on search results if scaled up, and the fact that it's not required in America, do you really think they'll make the whole global search engine work this way? Or do you think they'll do the same thing as done in every other case where some stupid country requires censorship: block based on domain name or IP address? Historically, for Europe it's been done via domain name. Doing it via IP address would not be any more effective though: there'd immediately be dozens of proxy sites set up running in the US that simply forward the search to the US Google and return the results. Short of building an equivalent to the Chinese Great Firewall and blocking all encrypted traffic, or forcing Google to apply European cenorship globally, there's no way to stop Europeans who want regular results pages from getting them.
throwaway7767 12y ago
> And not only that, it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it Do you have a reference that confirms this? I have not seen it mentioned in any of the articles about this issue.
krbbltr 12y ago

x0x0 12y ago

You'll note this is the privacy that Eric Schmidt already enjoys, or at least believes he should enjoy, whether it's using lawyers to get one his many mistresses' blog yanked from the internet [1], or when he tried to get his political donations pulled from google search: Mr. Schmidt, Google’s outspoken chief who will be replaced by Mr. Page on Monday, has made public gaffes when speaking about privacy. Mr. Levy reveals that he has made gaffes inside the company, too. Mr. Schmidt asked that Google remove from the search engine information about a political donation he had made. Sheryl Sandberg, a Google executive who is now Facebook’s chief operating officer, told him that was unacceptable. [2] And of course, there is always his infamous suggestion that people should change their name when they turn eighteen, in part to avoid google reporting every dumb thing they did as a child. It's hard to say whether he's a sociopath or an entitled asshole, so I suggest compromise: he's an entitled sociopathic asshole. [1] http://gawker.com/5477611/googles-ceo-demanded-his-mistress-take-down-her-blog-source http://gawker.com/5477611/googles-ceo-demanded-his-mistress-... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01author.html?_r=4&ref=technology& http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/business/01author.html?_r=...

Aloisius 12y ago
I don't see why it is Google's responsibility to act as a censor. After all if there is truly a right to be forgotten (which is wonderful news to a great number of criminals and future politicians), you should go after the origin of the information, not the index.

spindritf 12y ago

The search engines aren't the ones losing out. This will not impact their bottom line. We, the users, are missing out on the completeness of our search results. You already have no control over information about you. It has always been like that, people have been gossiping since the dawn of language. If something was published, then it should be in the index. If you don't like it, take it up with the publisher. This is just like those ridiculous rulings on copyright infringement by linking to a copyrighted work. And yes, everyone who downvotes you is a shill for Google at 0.2$/downvote. There's just no other explanation.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "If something was published, then it should be in the index." We already make exceptions for certain things (illegal content). Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere - it's just a matter of where we draw it. >> "We, the users, are missing out on the completeness of our search results." With this law AFAIK content cannot be removed if that would be against the public good. So, for example, a politician can't have an article that makes the look bad but is true removed. Technically, although no longer 'complete', the quality of your search results should not be hit. The only results being removed are ones which are incorrect and damaging to someone. >> "If you don't like it, take it up with the publisher." AFAIK with this law the publisher has to remove it too. Google is involved because they cache pages which can include deleted content.
- seren 12y ago
  Actually, it was not removed from the newspaper archive, because the article referring Mr. Gonzalez was published under a judicial injunction. And so his request was rejected by the Spanish court of data protection. But the case was upheld against Google. Full EU court ruling in the following link: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=116214 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc... I think the case make a distinction between a newspaper publication that is rather ephemeral and spatially located vs a search engine that plays a big part in disseminating information or any other "data processor" that can potentially expose the information for ever. The crux of the argument seems to be that even if you are only indexing, by definition, you are managing/duplicating data, and in some case, they are private data so you have a responsibility before the person being identified (the "data subject").

chrismcb 12y ago

Who decides what is inadequate or irrelevant? Search engines just index the web. If you have an issue with some stuff on the web, then go after the person hosting it, not the person telling you where it is. This is akin to shooting the messenger.