5 ms·

I like that they told the author that his article would no longer be viewable. If that's the case, and the 'removal' is not secret, then they could (should?) t

I like that they told the author that his article would no longer be viewable. If that's the case, and the 'removal' is not secret, then they could (should?) totally make available a separate database of articles that people have asked to be removed. Basically, the original article may be old (or theoretically irrelevant) but the fact that someone asked for it to be removed is very new and not at all irrelevant. It would be awesome to see this as the Streisand effect writ large - everything that people want to see buried actually gets a new surge of attention.

Mithaldu 12y ago
This is actually a very good outcome. It will end up with those things where people do not mind something being forgotten actually being forgotten, while the decision to revive the content is still a perfectly viable option.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
Presumably he can then reissue the article. That for Google is a different instance and recent content making it outside the auspices of the EU law?
bitJericho 12y ago
In fact just publish the original request alongside the notice that the search results are censored.
magicalist 12y ago
The Guardian reported[1] that they were at least considering a notice at the bottom of a search result page that had a result removed, like they do with DMCA requests. If that's the case, hopefully they can do what they do with DMCA notices, and link to a copy of the actual takedown request (which would include a link or links to what was taken down). ChillingEffects.org could start a new section for right to be forgotten requests. On the other hand, reprinting DMCA takedown notices is protected by the First Amendment in the US, but reprinting right to be forgotten requests may be frowned upon by EU courts. Edit: according the newer Guardian piece that thegregjones posted above, there is a warning[2], but just a "Learn more" link, no link to the actual removal request. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/google-search-results-indicate-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/google-sea... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg
- fpgeek 12y ago
  Google considered a DMCA-like notice. The court found this to be an attempt to circumvent the ruling, since it would make it too easy to find removed material. Instead, they settled on a notice for any search that might have been affected (essentially any search for a name), whether or not results have been removed: http://searchengineland.com/right-to-be-forgotten-notices-195542 http://searchengineland.com/right-to-be-forgotten-notices-19...
Mr_P 12y ago
Perhaps we need something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Chi....

Mithaldu 12y ago

This is actually a very good outcome. It will end up with those things where people do not mind something being forgotten actually being forgotten, while the decision to revive the content is still a perfectly viable option.

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

Presumably he can then reissue the article. That for Google is a different instance and recent content making it outside the auspices of the EU law?

bitJericho 12y ago

In fact just publish the original request alongside the notice that the search results are censored.

magicalist 12y ago

The Guardian reported[1] that they were at least considering a notice at the bottom of a search result page that had a result removed, like they do with DMCA requests. If that's the case, hopefully they can do what they do with DMCA notices, and link to a copy of the actual takedown request (which would include a link or links to what was taken down). ChillingEffects.org could start a new section for right to be forgotten requests. On the other hand, reprinting DMCA takedown notices is protected by the First Amendment in the US, but reprinting right to be forgotten requests may be frowned upon by EU courts. Edit: according the newer Guardian piece that thegregjones posted above, there is a warning[2], but just a "Learn more" link, no link to the actual removal request. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/google-search-results-indicate-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/08/google-sea... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrYpLOwIgAE8pF0.jpg

fpgeek 12y ago
Google considered a DMCA-like notice. The court found this to be an attempt to circumvent the ruling, since it would make it too easy to find removed material. Instead, they settled on a notice for any search that might have been affected (essentially any search for a name), whether or not results have been removed: http://searchengineland.com/right-to-be-forgotten-notices-195542 http://searchengineland.com/right-to-be-forgotten-notices-19...

Mr_P 12y ago

Perhaps we need something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Chi....