8 ms·

How does this request not have merit? What makes it "clumsy"? Because the linked author says it is? Recall that the original action that yielded the right to b

by personZ 12y ago

How does this request not have merit? What makes it "clumsy"? Because the linked author says it is? Recall that the original action that yielded the right to be forgotten clause was a gentleman who wanted a debt confiscation and sale removed from the public record. The actual national agency told him to get lost -- the data was valid and unchallenged, and is a part of the recognized past, and is fully available and robust if you search them -- but the European Court decided that search engines must, for some reason, erase this past. Merrill Lynch was absorbed into Bank of America: It no longer exists as an organization. This gentleman has moved on and no longer serves as Chairman or CEO, effectively retired and sitting on apparently a single board. Is a newspaper article slandering him really relevant (the pertinent demand of the court ruling) to anyone anymore? Why, if the search engines have to pretend that a man didn't really have property confiscated and sold for debts, do they not have to also pretend that he wasn't a CEO? Note that European courts really like giving out big fines (especially, it seems, to American companies), so this impossible to judge subjective basis by which items must be deleted is a no-win situation for Google, and of course they must lean to the side of erring to delete. Erring to retain is a legal quagmire.

kjjw 12y ago
I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.
- personZ 12y ago
  The incentive Google has is to not get sued for contravening a lawful order of the European Court. I don't see what conspiratorial wagering adds (the implied notions of your first post were obvious to all). And be sure that every person with the means is going to exploit this immediately to expunge anything negative in their past. Google is in a position of being unable to decide what the European Court, or any other court, might decide is "relevant" (perhaps the court will be willing to offer its services to judge this), so the end result is obvious, no conspiracy needed.
  - kjjw 12y ago
    I get what you're saying but given that there has yet to be a fine issued under this scheme what you are describing is also wagering. I am doubtful about any commercial entity's good intentions when it comes to an opportunity to exploit a system to their benefit.
wnoise 12y ago
> Is a newspaper article slandering him It's not slander if it's true.

by personZ 12y ago

kjjw 12y ago

I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.

personZ 12y ago
The incentive Google has is to not get sued for contravening a lawful order of the European Court. I don't see what conspiratorial wagering adds (the implied notions of your first post were obvious to all). And be sure that every person with the means is going to exploit this immediately to expunge anything negative in their past. Google is in a position of being unable to decide what the European Court, or any other court, might decide is "relevant" (perhaps the court will be willing to offer its services to judge this), so the end result is obvious, no conspiracy needed.
- kjjw 12y ago
  I get what you're saying but given that there has yet to be a fine issued under this scheme what you are describing is also wagering. I am doubtful about any commercial entity's good intentions when it comes to an opportunity to exploit a system to their benefit.

wnoise 12y ago

> Is a newspaper article slandering him It's not slander if it's true.