3 ms·
I'm not sure you understand the issue here because on the face of it you suggest that we burn our historical record (newspapers and obliterate website) every 7
by kjksf 12y ago
I'm not sure you understand the issue here because on the face of it you suggest that we burn our historical record (newspapers and obliterate website) every 7 years.
The issue here isn't that Google has some information on you that leaks and if Google doesn't have this information then it won't leak.
The issue is that there is a web page, Google indexes that web page (because that's the purpose of a web search engine), someone doesn't like what that page says about him and now they have a way to ask Google to remove that page from Google's index.
It's basically decentralized censorship with frighteningly low standards for removal of information, nonexistent oversight and apparently no penalty for trying to abuse the system.
There is no solution to the "problem" that doesn't involve heavy-handed censorship.
- pekk 12y agoSo your counter-proposal is heavy-handed public surveillance...
- DSMan195276 12y agoI know what you're getting at, but I have a hard time considering it 'heavy-handed public surveillance' when the info was already able to be found via Google in the first place. It's also not like the NSA (or anybody else) is just going to magically delete all the information they have stored when it can't be found via Google anymore. It's censorship at worst and just not that effective for it's purpose at best.
- meowface 12y ago>The issue here isn't that Google has some information on you that leaks and if Google doesn't have this information then it won't leak. That's quite a stretch to suggest it won't leak. How about other search engines? How about websites that cache Google's own results and caching?