• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

EU Google ruling

!Kaggen

Illuminator
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
3,874
The European Courts of Justice ruled on Tuesday that an individual could demand that "irrelevant or outdated" information be deleted from results.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27407017

I think it points to the inconsistency of how the internet works.
Information is not owned anymore by those that provide it.
And the users accept this arrangement for the "free" service of using server portals ( Google, Facebook etc).
These server portals in turn make money using this information that flows through there server portal.
It may be indirectly through advertising to those users accessing these portals or analytics of the information and/or users.
The point is if you make money from the information you need to take responsibility for it.
Alternatively the information should remain the property of those that provided it and the profits generated from it should be shared out in proportion to the traffic the specific information generates. This way Google etc is no longer responsible for content, but they also now need to share the profits.
You cannot have it both ways and I think this is the beginning of the end of these siren servers.
 
This is an absolutely horrible, terrible ruling. I sure hope it gets struck down on appeal. Unbelievable that the search engine, which is simply linking to material on the Internet, would be expected to be responsible for the content of that which it links to. It's like a TV manufacturer being held responsible for libelous content on a channel that the TV receives a signal from.
That's probably stretching things a bit, but it's definitely similar to holding a library responsible for the content of a book on its shelves.
Any insight into why the court would make such a stupid ruling?
 
From the article:

On Tuesday, a top EU court ruled that Google must remove search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten"
The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his privacy.

Ridiculous. The right to be forgotten? Does that mean that results about Ghengis Khan's atrocities should be stricken if his ancestors demand it, because hey, even he has the right to be forgotten after a while, right?
 
Last edited:
What really bothers me about it the most is that it's attempting to suppress the retrieval of information that exists. It would be one thing if it were legally determined that the information shouldn't be available to the public in the first place, and that anyone hosting it should take it down, but no: it's that the information exists, but they want to deny GOOGLE THE RIGHT TO HELP PEOPLE FIND IT, and that if it does, it is committing a crime. That, to me, is entering disturbing territory. If the information exists, people should be allowed to access it as long as it is legal to do so. And as long as it is legal to do so, it should be legal for a search engine to help people who want to find it, find it.
 
Last edited:
This is an absolutely horrible, terrible ruling. I sure hope it gets struck down on appeal. Unbelievable that the search engine, which is simply linking to material on the Internet, would be expected to be responsible for the content of that which it links to. It's like a TV manufacturer being held responsible for libelous content on a channel that the TV receives a signal from.
That's probably stretching things a bit, but it's definitely similar to holding a library responsible for the content of a book on its shelves.
Any insight into why the court would make such a stupid ruling?

You misunderstand the ruling. Google was not found responsible for linking, in fact the content itself is allowed to stay (the newspaper was sued in first instance and judge stated newspaper had a right to leave the info publicly available). Google was found responsible to be unwilling to remove the link from the index when asked to. Not the same thing.

I am personally split on the ruling. I see the insanity of it, and the well founded part of it.
 
You misunderstand the ruling. Google was not found responsible for linking, in fact the content itself is allowed to stay (the newspaper was sued in first instance and judge stated newspaper had a right to leave the info publicly available). Google was found responsible to be unwilling to remove the link from the index when asked to. Not the same thing.

I am personally split on the ruling. I see the insanity of it, and the well founded part of it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Would an appropriate analogy be that if the author of a book asks a library not to help patrons find that book on its shelves, because that author wishes that he or she had never written that book and is embarrassed to have done so, then the library should refuse to help someone find that book on its shelves, even if the book exists? And if it does help a patron find the book on its shelves, it would be breaking the law?

If so, I don't see how I'm misunderstanding the ruling.
 
Last edited:
In a sense this is not any different than the DMCA takedowns Google already complies with. Should Google choose to comply with a privacy based takedown request, the relevant search result would be replaced with something like:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
That is to say, the results wouldn't just mysteriously disappear. What's more, the result would only be removed when the searching for the name of the person who demanded removal. You could still find the relevant page using some other query words.

The ruling also does not formulate any 'right to be forgotten'; some commentators are confusing the political/legislative push (2012 january guidelines) with this ECJ ruling. It does appear that ECJ is sympathetic towards such a right, but this ruling is quite specific and does not reveal how they would balance the competing interests in different circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Would an appropriate analogy be that if the author of a book asks a library not to help patrons find that book on its shelves, because that author wishes that he or she had never written that book and is embarrassed to have done so, then the library should refuse to help someone find that book on its shelves, even if the book exists? And if it does help a patron find the book on its shelves, it would be breaking the law?

If so, I don't see how I'm misunderstanding the ruling.

A library analogy would be that the index cataloge would indicate on an index card to find every information in the universe. Then somebody fall into debt, come out of it but that information as published, and now every time somebody search his name, the *first* index card shown is the one where that person is in debt. And that royally screw their live because it gives an impression of that person which is not very good (think jobs). Thus the person require THIS index card to be removed. The newspaper is still available. Just not index with that person NAME. ETA: in other word the patron would still be able to find index card on:
* the newspaper
* the newspaper in conjunction of the keyword "debt"
Just not when searching that persons name. In fact the newspaper itself is still reachable uncensored.

The sane part of the ruling is that nobody should have their life ruined for a small error that they later corrected. The insane part of the ruling is the implication on everybody pestering the poor index catalog guy to remove cards every day.
 
Last edited:
As an another analogy, just by accident of name, some person are unique in google some person are widespread (think Joe smith, versus Archibald Nunkthorpstable). Many people enjoy anonymity because their name is widespread. Anything they do get buried deep down in google. On the other hand those with unique name rapidly get problem if their name is associated with something negative their page come first up.

Whether you find that good because it allows you to show what you find relevant , that can rapidly make the life of others nightmare for no fault of theirs.

So it is a balance against privacy right , right to have a normal life, and google indexing.

That's why I am split because as somebody with a very unique name, I appear first in google and can imagine myself in the same situation easily. But i also see where this judging can become really insane.
 
Criminal records and "spent" convictions? In the UK:

"The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) provides that convictions for which someone is sentenced to less than two and a half years in prison or to a penalty other than imprisonment become “spent” within a specified period of time (between six months and ten years), provided that the person does not reoffend in the meantime. This means the person will not need to disclose that conviction to anyone once the relevant period has passed."

If your conviction is easily found through Google then a job applicant (say) looks bad if they don't disclose a spent conviction that they're perfectly entitled to keep under wraps.
 
thanks for the link. So they took it as an obligation of the data protection more or less.

1. Article 2(b) and (d) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data are to be interpreted as meaning that, first, the activity of a search engine consisting in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference must be classified as ‘processing of personal data’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) when that information contains personal data and, second, the operator of the search engine must be regarded as the ‘controller’ in respect of that processing, within the meaning of Article 2(d).

2. Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46 is to be interpreted as meaning that processing of personal data is carried out in the context of the activities of an establishment of the controller on the territory of a Member State, within the meaning of that provision, when the operator of a search engine sets up in a Member State a branch or subsidiary which is intended to promote and sell advertising space offered by that engine and which orientates its activity towards the inhabitants of that Member State.

3. Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to comply with the rights laid down in those provisions and in so far as the conditions laid down by those provisions are in fact satisfied, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.

4. Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.


Note that there is an easy way out for google: never sell any advertising anymore in Spain and never have an office in Spain.
 
thanks for the link. So they took it as an obligation of the data protection more or less.




Note that there is an easy way out for google: never sell any advertising anymore in Spain and never have an office in Spain.


The ruling is completely invalid. They misspelled "Internet" by not capitalizing it. :(
 
Criminal records and "spent" convictions? In the UK:

"The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) provides that convictions for which someone is sentenced to less than two and a half years in prison or to a penalty other than imprisonment become “spent” within a specified period of time (between six months and ten years), provided that the person does not reoffend in the meantime. This means the person will not need to disclose that conviction to anyone once the relevant period has passed."

If your conviction is easily found through Google then a job applicant (say) looks bad if they don't disclose a spent conviction that they're perfectly entitled to keep under wraps.

At this stage, the horse has already bolted, and the system needs to adapt to it rather than resort to memory hole tactics.
 
Criminal records and "spent" convictions? In the UK:

"The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA) provides that convictions for which someone is sentenced to less than two and a half years in prison or to a penalty other than imprisonment become “spent” within a specified period of time (between six months and ten years), provided that the person does not reoffend in the meantime. This means the person will not need to disclose that conviction to anyone once the relevant period has passed."

If your conviction is easily found through Google then a job applicant (say) looks bad if they don't disclose a spent conviction that they're perfectly entitled to keep under wraps.

I'm not sure that this problem requires the ECJ's ruling - since IIRC reporting on someone's spent conviction is defamatory even when true - so it would be possible to require the site linked by google to remove the information. The new development in the ECJ ruling is that (apparently) there is information which can be available but should not be (easily) searchable.

thanks for the link. So they took it as an obligation of the data protection more or less.
np. More or less - the Data Protection Directive provides a kind of privacy right, but subject to the usual kind of exceptions - public interest and so on - that's why the ECJ leave it to the national court in the case to decide whether or not there is a public interest in the information being available based upon a name-search.

Note that there is an easy way out for google: never sell any advertising anymore in Spain and never have an office in Spain.

They'd have to pull out of the EU all together and that's a huge market to forego.
 
Surprise surprise


Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results, the BBC has learned.

An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped.

And a doctor wants negative reviews from patients removed from the results.

The cure is worse than the disease.
 
From the article:



Ridiculous. The right to be forgotten? Does that mean that results about Ghengis Khan's atrocities should be stricken if his ancestors demand it, because hey, even he has the right to be forgotten after a while, right?

Nice trick if they can do this.





(I think you mean descendants ;) )
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom