surprising eu ruling on google search history

Page: 1, 2, 3
Online now: No visible users
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
top european court says individuals can control their own data

Quote:
The top European court has backed the "right to be forgotten" and said Google must delete "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" data from its results when a member of the public requests it.

The test case privacy ruling by the European Union's court of justice against Google Spain was brought by a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, after he failed to secure the deletion of an auction notice of his repossessed home dating from 1998 on the website of a mass circulation newspaper in Catalonia.

Costeja González argued that the matter, in which his house had been auctioned to recover his social security debts, had been resolved and should no longer be linked to him whenever his name was searched on Google.

He told the Guardian: "Like anyone would be when you tell them they're right, I'm happy. I was fighting for the elimination of data that adversely affects people's honour, dignity and exposes their private lives. Everything that undermines human beings, that's not freedom of expression."


a very interesting ruling ... apparently google has been flooded by requests to delete unflattering bits of data, including a pedophile and a politician seeking re-election

what do we think of this? should we be able to control our data, or not?

also, what are the odds the ruling could be replicated on the happy side of the pond?
It has both good and bad connotations. I think I'd rather not allow deletion.
TOS
User avatar
you wouldn't rather we all forget about your coke dealing years?
Forgive perhaps, forget never.
TOS
User avatar
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
I think there are two aspects to this:

First is the collection of metadata about a person, things like their name(including username), their credit card information, their addresses, et cetera. I'd absolutely support the forced deletion of this information.

Second is the information that's been volunteered in stories, like postings on forums and on public sites like reddit. I wouldn't allow the forced deletion of data, but I would allow the forced anonymization thereof, meaning if someone wanted the things they posted to no longer include their names, there should be a way to do that that leaves the content they posted intact but doesn't personally identify them. Once you've volunteered anonymized information, it's pretty wasteful for government to expect site owners to have some kind of responsibility to delete it. There is an exception to this, when the content existing constitutes a threat to someone's health(and by person I mean person and by health I mean health), so in cases of things like stalking, I would support the forced removal.
TOS
User avatar
matt posted:
I think there are two aspects to this:

First is the collection of metadata about a person, things like their name(including username), their credit card information, their addresses, et cetera. I'd absolutely allow the forced deletion of this information.

Second is the information that's been volunteered, like postings on forums and on public sites like reddit. I wouldn't allow the forced deletion of data, but I would allow the forced anonymization thereof, meaning if someone wanted the things they posted to no longer include their names, there should be a way to do that that leaves the content they posted intact but doesn't personally identify them.


what about the example in the article, the one that led to the court case -- an unflattering article in a newspaper that goes online and shows up on google searches?
You mean like googling Santorum?
obvs not a cultural imperialist
User avatar
TOS posted:
what about the example in the article, the one that led to the court case -- an unflattering article in a newspaper that goes online and shows up on google searches?
Ahh, it looks like you quoted while I was editing.

Unless it's something like libel, then no, I don't believe in allowing people to erase historical records to make themselves sound better.
TOS
User avatar
matt posted:
TOS posted:
what about the example in the article, the one that led to the court case -- an unflattering article in a newspaper that goes online and shows up on google searches?
Ahh, it looks like you quoted while I was editing.

Unless it's something like libel, then no, I don't believe in allowing people to erase historical records to make themselves sound better.


it's not erasing historical records, it's just not having them show up in google ... the sites that google links to are left alone

me, i'm kinda torn on this one, but it's interesting
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Nope.
I can think of some cases where a person should be able to get certain things removed but things like court cases, which are part of the public record, should remain.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
I Googled myself.

Nothin' there I didn't already know ...
I'm for erring on the side of individual privacy. I wouldn't shed a tear if Google disappeared altogether.
ukimalefu Wasn't me
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
I Googled myself.

Nothin' there I didn't already know ...


Image
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
Nope.
I can think of some cases where a person should be able to get certain things removed but things like court cases, which are part of the public record, should remain.


but the records will still be there, it's just a question of google indexing them

considering that everyone gets googled, should everything be out on display like that? is it fair?
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
Nope.
I can think of some cases where a person should be able to get certain things removed but things like court cases, which are part of the public record, should remain.


but the records will still be there, it's just a question of google indexing them

considering that everyone gets googled, should everything be out on display like that? is it fair?

Fair? For public records? Of course it's fair.
I have no love for Google and personally I think the goog is creepy as fiddlesticks, but public records could not possibly be more fair game. There have been companies peddling indexes of public records as long as there has been movable type.
Public records are exactly the kind of things we really need good search for.
fiddlesticks that guy for being so butt hurt about his foreclosure. It happened, man up and deal with it.
Quote:
Border fences are going up online too. This week Google is expanding the European Union’s “right to be forgotten”. Europeans may ask search engines to remove certain links from results generated by queries for their names, and Google has done so for more than 500,000 web pages. Hitherto the company delisted links only from the national versions of its search service (like google.de or google.fr). Now it is removing them from the lot, including google.com, for European visitors identified using location data such as IP addresses. The change follows demands from European privacy regulators, who think that deletion only from national sites made a mockery of the right to be forgotten. But it means Google searches will take place within national borders. The technically minded can install software indicating that they are in a different country, but few will bother. Europe’s internet is a little less global.


https://espresso.economist.com/e15ba1d741d67cb0598bcfa42529a8b0

I think it's a positive step backwards.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
The cold hand of EU information suppression extends it's grip.
No, I don't think Google owes me any information, and people who do stuff that happens to get on the web don't owe me information either. Google search is a service offered by a corporation, it's not a right. People who don't want to participate in Google's search offerings ought to be able to tell Google that.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
Ribtor posted:
No, I don't think Google owes me any information, and people who do stuff that happens to get on the web don't owe me information either. Google search is a service offered by a corporation, it's not a right. People who don't want to participate in Google's search offerings ought to be able to tell Google that.

Except this is not about Google, it is about indexing services in general.
Should someone be able to force a company that indexes public records from being able to index their records? I say no, the EU says yes.
dv
User avatar
They're not indexing public records; they're indexing Facebook, wordpress blogs, etc., which are all privately owned/operated. Publicly accessible != public property.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
dv posted:
They're not indexing public records; they're indexing Facebook, wordpress blogs, etc., which are all privately owned/operated. Publicly accessible != public property.

I do not like the fact that people can hide true facts. There is a legitimate interest in knowing if someone has declared bankruptcy if you are going to do business with them. Can a politician scrub Google from any reference to their having been a member of the KKK? I believe it is against the public interest to allow individuals to be able to hide true facts about themselves. I see this as a tool that bad actors can use to scrub their past because minor indiscretions are not interesting enough to result in much coverage online so this tool is primarily aimed at helping bad people hiding bad things.
I say this as someone who has declared bankruptcy and has been arrested a few times one arrest being a fairly big local story for a few months 25 years ago.
It's for people who chose to be removed from Google's searches. Most people, especially those who use social media etc, will probably not demand to have their information removed from searches.

Since it's up to the individual to make the request, I take it then that those who oppose the EU rule also oppose the act an individual making a request. Because such a request, whether honoured by google out of courtesy or mandated by law, flies in the face of what a Google search result is supposed to be.
dv posted:
They're not indexing public records; they're indexing Facebook, wordpress blogs, etc., which are all privately owned/operated. Publicly accessible != public property.

Ok, first off, this absolutely impacts public records and published documents. In fact, the very test case originally discussed was about a newspaper article. If this were just about Facebook and Wordpress, the person who wants to be forgotten would be able to delete their posts and solve the problem.

This is an absolutely disgusting example of censorship, and I cannot believe that anyone here would support it. The discredited researched who linked vaccines and autism through falsified data wants the fact that he did so forgotten, so let's indulge him! A politician wants his previous editorial published in a newspaper forgotten, so let's indulge him!

Does this extend to LexusNexus and other tools to search newspapers and publications? If this applied to academic databases, the idea is even more chilling.
are any and all steps an individual takes to keep themselves from showing up in a Google search, censorship? There are plenty of ways to do this, from passive to active.
No. The government forcing Google to exclude things is censorship.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
MacAddict4Life posted:
No. The government forcing Google to exclude things is censorship.

This.
Old Yoda agitator
User avatar
Pariah posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
No. The government forcing Google to exclude things is censorship.

This.

In general no.
The courts are where one goes to redress a grievance like expunging a false record.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
OldYoda posted:
Pariah posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
No. The government forcing Google to exclude things is censorship.

This.

In general no.
The courts are where one goes to redress a grievance like expunging a false record.

If this were about expunging a false record I would not be opposed. It is not about getting rid of lies, it is about hiding the truth.
MacAddict4Life posted:
No. The government forcing Google to exclude things is censorship.


The rule says Google can't always refuse to remove information. Google is not the arbiter of a citizen's privacy.
TOS
User avatar
it's just a small administrative tweak to reflect the existence of the eu

i know the slippery slope crowd aren't capable of seeing any non-publication of information by anyone, anywhere, for any reason, as anything but draconian fascistic censorship, but this just isn't a huge deal

and by the way the evil horrible anti-freedom european (oh those haters of liberty) right to be forgotten is eventually coming to north america

i know there's zero point in arguing the merits of it anymore, but i feel sure that it's just a matter of when and not if
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Only if we have a safety word.
Yours is Scalia. Don't forget it!
TOS
User avatar
MacAddict4Life posted:
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?


nope

because we see google differently
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
TOS posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?


nope

because we see google differently

It is disingenuous to say this is about Google and you know that very well.
But you are right, it seems discussion is pointless and all that is left is to use the political process to stand opposed to this and other efforts to sanitize the information available.
I am sure the former board members of Enron cannot wait for this to come to North America.
TOS
User avatar
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?


nope

because we see google differently

It is disingenuous to say this is about Google and you know that very well.
But you are right, it seems discussion is pointless and all that is left is to use the political process to stand opposed to this and other efforts to sanitize the information available.
I am sure the former board members of Enron cannot wait for this to come to North America.


it's not disingenuous in the least

i consider google search results to be equivalent to broadcast media, and i don't believe that the personal details of everyone's lives should be spewed out to the universe

presumably you view google as more of a library, one that should be open to all -- and editing results are akin to burning books or something
maurvir Perfectly balanced - mostly
User avatar
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?


nope

because we see google differently

It is disingenuous to say this is about Google and you know that very well.
But you are right, it seems discussion is pointless and all that is left is to use the political process to stand opposed to this and other efforts to sanitize the information available.
I am sure the former board members of Enron cannot wait for this to come to North America.


it's not disingenuous in the least

i consider google search results to be equivalent to broadcast media, and i don't believe that the personal details of everyone's lives should be spewed out to the universe

presumably you view google as more of a library, one that should be open to all -- and editing results are akin to burning books or something


Google isn't even a library - it's more akin to a ridiculously large card catalog. (for those old enough to remember those...)

Image

Except it's computerized and programmed to help you find things similar to what you asked for.

I can see requiring Google to pull indexes for false or libelous information, but I don't think they should be required to pull indexes for accurate information, except under special circumstances. Specifically, if the information is likely to cause real physical harm to someone.
I think the word 'censorship' is being used too freely.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
maurvir posted:
TOS posted:
Pariah posted:
TOS posted:
MacAddict4Life posted:
You really don't see this an example or prior restraint?

Or you really are comfortable with the idea of prior restraint?


nope

because we see google differently

It is disingenuous to say this is about Google and you know that very well.
But you are right, it seems discussion is pointless and all that is left is to use the political process to stand opposed to this and other efforts to sanitize the information available.
I am sure the former board members of Enron cannot wait for this to come to North America.


it's not disingenuous in the least

i consider google search results to be equivalent to broadcast media, and i don't believe that the personal details of everyone's lives should be spewed out to the universe

presumably you view google as more of a library, one that should be open to all -- and editing results are akin to burning books or something


Google isn't even a library - it's more akin to a ridiculously large card catalog. (for those old enough to remember those...)

Image

Except it's computerized and programmed to help you find things similar to what you asked for.

I can see requiring Google to pull indexes for false or libelous information, but I don't think they should be required to pull indexes for accurate information, except under special circumstances. Specifically, if the information is likely to cause real physical harm to someone.

Yes, this.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

surprising eu ruling on google search history

Page: 1, 2, 3