Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...gle-wipe-details-search-index-right-forgotten

The Guardian understands that the applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant including, in the UK, a former politician who is now seeking office and wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index, while a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.

In total hundreds of people have made claims across Europe since the ruling was released on Tuesday morning.

...


The ruling says that search engines must remove links where they point to information that is "irrelevant or outdated" but that the original information itself can remain. That could cause tensions between the search engines and news organisations, because the latter may argue that links should not be removed, creating a tug of war that leaves the search engines at risk of being sued by both the complainant and the original source of the information.

The ECJ ruling includes a public interest test, which says that search engines do not have to honour removal requests if keeping the links about a person "is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question".

...

Google is understood to be considering offloading the task of deciding whether links should be removed from its index to the data protection commissioners in the country where requests are received – a move that could add significantly to the commissioners' caseload, which in some cases is already under considerable strain.

More at the link.

The interesting stuff for me is The search engine gets the requests directly, and has to decide if the request is legit or not. I assumed the government would have a say, considering how ambiguous the requirements are. It looks like at least Google is going to try and get the requests filtered through the government, but the government might not be able to hand that sort of load.

 

[ComputerMKII]

This will be great for censoring the press.

 

[riotous]

Yeah it's kind of a ridiculous ruling IMO.

Way too vague for a policy a company is supposed to follow.

If I were google I'd send all requests right back to the government to decide as well.

 

[animus82]

The EU ruling is complete Lunacy.

Google just finds what's out there.

Those you have data entries about you should remove whatever. Not google.

Completely stupid.

EU just likes to mess with google and microsoft, facebook, etc so they can "fine" them.

Some BS.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

Hopefully Google sticks to it's guns on some of these a Doctor's reviews aren't irrelevant. You shouldn't be able to bury something because it makes you look bad on a professional level except for some exceptions.

 

[Chariot]

Yeah it's kind of a ridiculous ruling IMO.

Way too vague for a policy a company is supposed to follow.

If I were google I'd send all requests right back to the government to decide as well.

This.
The ruling is so dumb.

 

[Ferrio]

Really really bad ruling. I feel bad for google, and the internet overall.

 

[Sneds]

This ruling sounded unworkable.

 

[ReAxion]

Google, pull out of the EU!

 

[ISOM]

Google, pull out of the EU!

Way too much money to do that.

 

[subrock]

I can see google deleting old records from their index, but if the data is fresh, then their index should be too. Stale records are probably already being deleted without intervention.

 

[bodyboarder]

This ruling sounded unworkable.

It's fine if they just offload it to the government.

 

[massoluk]

Yup, I really wonder if whoever made the final ruling understood the implication of this.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

lol this is going to be an administrative shitshow.

EU should have put the onus on the user and the source company/entity to remove the invalid/outdated information.

 

[Kinitari]

lol this is going to be an administrative shitshow.

EU should have put the onus on the user and the source company/entity to remove the invalid/outdated information.

Another really interesting thing about this is that there is now a legal difference between how "private" information can be shared when it comes to it being indexed or just available on say a news site.

It's not that the information is out there that's the stickler, it's that the general public has easy access to it

 

[SimleuqiR]

Google, pull out of the EU!

But she feels so goood...

 

[Cipherr]

According to BBC News, new takedown requests have already come in from a politician trying to shore up his image as he seeks re-election and "a man convicted of possessing child abuse images" has also asked that links pointing to pages about his case be wiped away.

Oh..... I see...

I'm sure there is no possible way this could have been handled better.... Absolutely positive.

Yup, I really wonder if whoever made the final ruling understood the implication of this.

I still think it needs to happen to some degree. But the initial ruling seemed exploitable, despite everyone in the thread trying to convince us otherwise. I had a feeling the first few examples of people looking to 'use' this would be scenarios like the ones quoted above. A goddamned creeper and a politician looking to cover up his/her history.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

Another really interesting thing about this is that there is now a legal difference between how "private" information can be shared when it comes to it being indexed or just available on say a news site.

It's not that the information is out there that's the stickler, it's that the general public has easy access to it

That's the main thing for me too. I totally empathize with people wanting to make data like bankruptcy notices less searchable as there's a grey market for companies that make that record that much more visible and blackmail people with it. But a doctor trying to block bad reviews or Amy's Baking Company clearly shouldn't be covered under this. The record of the decade old bankruptcy will still exist, but it won't be a page one Google result anymore.

 

[Sneds]

It's fine if they just offload it to the government.

How would it be easier for the government?

 

[ampere]

Absurd ruling.

If a website is hosting libel or defaming material unjustly, a court order could be made to order takedown. To have a search engine add exceptions to searches because people don't like something showing up in searches is insane... that's the stuff they do with Baidu in China. Government doesn't want it showing up in searches? It won't.

 

[Tesseract]

they shouldn't do shit, fuck it

 

[reggie]

Have to laugh at the complete change of tune between the last thread and this one. Different people, yeah, but still.

This was so obviously going to be a shit show. Shouldn't be Googles problem to solve, sorry. They are a fucking search engine, if it exists it's not their fault.

 

[Aureon]

Except for obvious cases (Court-settled defamation leftovers and the likes), send them all back to the courts. Policy too broad to be left to Google's responsibility.

 

[Alexlf]

How would it be easier for the government?

It wouldn't, that's the point. They seemed to decide it was feasible for Google to do, so they can do it themselves is the sentiment here I believe.

 

[Vyrance]

Have to laugh at the complete change of tune between the last thread and this one. Different people, yeah, but still.

This was so obviously going to be a shit show. Shouldn't be Googles problem to solve, sorry. They are a fucking search engine, if it exists it's not their fault.

Yea I agree with you, saw this stuff coming a mile away

 

[Prototype]

This will be great for censoring the press.

Pretty much this.

So chimos, rapists, violent criminals and crooked businessmen among others can have a peace of mind they don't deserve? that's some bullshit if I've ever heard it.

Also, yes , the impact on a free press and how corporations and politicians will use this to their advantage is mind numbing. This will effect the poor the most, which is by far the vast majority of the world. Really sad to see things like this happening.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

If a Mod won't edit my posts, the fucking Euro courts will!

 

[IISANDERII]

Google manipulates searches for their own ends already so this ruling is well within reason.

 

[Vashetti]

You can't delete something once it's on the internet.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Have to laugh at the complete change of tune between the last thread and this one. Different people, yeah, but still.

This was so obviously going to be a shit show. Shouldn't be Googles problem to solve, sorry. They are a fucking search engine, if it exists it's not their fault.

Who could want this? Google isn't hosting this info. They just make it easy to find. Blame the website. This is just because Google is big and an easy target. Will they force every search engine to abided by this?

 

[Kinitari]

Google manipulates searches for their own ends already so this ruling is well within reason.

I don't see how those two things are related. So because Google's service works according to their rules, this ruling is okay?

Who could wasn't this? Google isn't hosting this info. They just make it easy to find. Blame the website. This is just because Google is big and an easy target. Will they force every search engine to abided by this?

Yea, all search engines have to abide these rules, although the original ruling was regarding Google.

 

[gcubed]

I'm glad the EU has net neutrality, but allows censoring the internet

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Yea, all search engines have to abide these rules, although the original ruling was regarding Google.

So it'll have to be a government entity handling it.

Edit: how long until a porn star asks for the links to be removed? How deep does this rabbit hole go?

 

[GSG Flash]

They should ignore every single one of those requests.

 

[Aesius]

Pretty much this.

So chimos, rapists, violent criminals and crooked businessmen among others can have a peace of mind they don't deserve? that's some bullshit if I've ever heard it.

Also, yes , the impact on a free press and how corporations and politicians will use this to their advantage is mind numbing. This will effect the poor the most, which is by far the vast majority of the world. Really sad to see things like this happening.

They can already pay a reputation management company to flood the first and second pages of Google with SEO-articles that push down any negative news to the third page or beyond.

 

[reggie]

Who could want this? Google isn't hosting this info. They just make it easy to find. Blame the website. This is just because Google is big and an easy target. Will they force every search engine to abided by this?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=817885

Look at all the people saying this is good news. You wont see them showing their faces now.

 

[evilromero]

I'm sorry, but nothing should be private, especially if you put it out there in the first place (intentionally or through a conviction). If the majority of us aren't making headlines by being complete fucktards, then it's on you to not be a fucktard either. Just be a decent human being.

 

[reggie]

I'm sorry, but nothing should be private, especially if you put it out there in the first place (intentionally or through a conviction). If the majority of us aren't making headlines by being complete fucktards, then it's on you to not be a fucktard either. Just be a decent human being.

Sorry, but when I diddled those kids I didn't think about the consequences of it showing up on the internet. EU please save me!

 

[CadetMahoney]

They're taking their time thinking of ways this could be used for censorship and then say "because the fans demanded it!".

 

[Kinitari]

I think it was inevitable that all sorts of people apply for this service, and obviously the intent was that they be denied the service, but it's not all extremes - paedophiles and shady doctors. There will be a lot of ambiguous greys and I really don't think anyone wants Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to decide and I don't think it'll be easy for anyone to decide who should be allowed to have this "wipe".

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I think it was inevitable that all sorts of people apply for this service, and obviously the intent was that they be denied the service, but it's not all extremes - paedophiles and shady doctors. There will be a lot of ambiguous greys and I really don't think anyone wants Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to decide and I don't think it'll be easy for anyone to decide who should be allowed to have this "wipe".

I don't want one service having to preferentially decide. The first thread talks about the petitioner requesting from the provider. Are people going to just ask Google because they are popular? Will they be forced to petition yahoo or ms? I know they have to work things out but the language seems vague.

I'm against the idea that you can search for info in the library but not online. The government shouldn't be selecting which form of communication is best.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The Guardian understands that the applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant including, in the UK, a former politician who is now seeking office and wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index, while a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.

Good Job EU! Where are the people defending this? Do they have an justification? Do they really think the public interest test is enough?

Who are we kidding though the EU has been horrible for free speech, it willingly censors things, if its in 'the peoples interest'

 

[The Faceless Master]

Have to laugh at the complete change of tune between the last thread and this one. Different people, yeah, but still.

This was so obviously going to be a shit show. Shouldn't be Googles problem to solve, sorry. They are a fucking search engine, if it exists it's not their fault.

many people saw a good idea in theory, but not too many people in practice want to side with child abusers.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm glad the EU has net neutrality, but allows censoring the internet

I'd rather have the fast lanes than this.

 

[tfur]

Yup. Like clockwork.

Backwards ass censorship ruling.

 

[TAJ]

I'll bet Paul Christoforo wishes he lived in Yurop.

 

[bodyboarder]

How would it be easier for the government?

It won't, it'll just mean google isn't stuck with it.

 

[Gaz Pwnage]

I don't really understand what the point in all this was in the first place tbh

 

[Cipherr]

I don't really understand what the point in all this was in the first place tbh

Well, in some specific/rare cases, being able to have things forcefully removed from search engines can be a good thing. Those situations are rare though, and making rules allowing it need to be done extremely carefully.

 

[videogamer]

Well, in some specific/rare cases, being able to have things forcefully removed from search engines can be a good thing. Those situations are rare though, and making rules allowing it need to be done extremely carefully.

Why not just mandate removal from the linked website itself?