Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

EU's "right to be forgotten" forces Google to remove links. Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    While it doesn't delete information it will make it harder for people to find information.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...by-Google.html

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/486...-Islam-removed

    It isn't about privacy but about deleting the past, this idiotic law will just allow the powerful to escape criticism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Woooooooooooooooo censorship 1984 illuminati :woo:



    But for real this is a pretty idiotic ruling.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Actually this is misinformation. The ruling does not apply to journalism or to any information that serves the public interest. It only serves the right of private citizen to apply for the information on them to be removed. Then the application is processed and it can be accepted or not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    Are you sure it doesn't apply to journalism? It perhaps shouldn't but...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014...n_5553880.html
    Its wasn't the ECJ writing the letter, but it was Google. Read this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ker-google-is/
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Dumb idea.

    No-one has the right to be forgotten. It's just a form of censorship.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Any possibility of Google acting strictly/harshly with the first cases to highlight the insanity of the law in the hope of getting changes in the future?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    This article seems incorrect. Explicitly in the case, emphasis my own, it is stated:



    By my interpretation this means that the Directive does not apply to journalistic outlets but this does not extend to a body such as Google who merely curate journalistic, and other, links. This merely protects news websites from being forced to remove pages, it has nothing to do with Google.

    Additionally, the notion of 'in the public interest' is, characteristic of case based EU law, entirely nebulous and in need of further definition. The blame for 'misapplying' an undefined term can hardly be placed upon Google.
    The links would be adjusted in ways to respect the 'right to be forgotten' (if and only if the application is accepted). However the articles would not be deleted and they could be found on search engines as Google simply by using different keywords.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...o-be-forgotten

    I agree the ruling needs further clarifications and specific protection for journalism... But it seems that the reaction of many people goes well beyond the points and issues of the 'right to be forgotten'.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This happened weeks ago, you're a bit behind. It only applies to outdated or irrelevant information anyway which I think is perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't call it censorship since information will still be accessible to anyone who goes looking for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There was an article on it in the Times today which unfortunately doesn't allow links as its all member protected and what not. But articles deleted include a news story about a couple having sex on a train, and a man falsely claiming that a major company wouldn't employ him based on his 'foreign' name... How long will it be before google is asked to erase stories about Hitler because he was a 'very naughty man'. Censorship in a biggggg no no in my opinion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The Daily Mail is apparently publishing a directory of all deleted material lol ;
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    You make it sound easy. I know that Google is a big company but it's hardly right for people like yourself to expect Google to create new features/mechanisms in their search engine to fulfil these requests.

    It's entirely possible (and likely in my opinion) that the removal of the link full-stop is the most feasible option for Google. Considering that most of Google searches are populated automatically with data and keywords which are automatically collected from webpages by crawlers how can it be expected for Google to manipulate how and when a contended search result does and doesn't show up...

    I'm not even sure you're thinking about this. How best should Google hide a BBC article about a person but still make available when searching for it without censored keywords?

    What's the relevance of Google benefiting from the reaction to their application of a bad (let's just agree it's bad in terms of certainty and leave out its qualitative merit) court ruling?
    You do not appear to know how the Google search engine works.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RumpeIstiltskin)
    This happened weeks ago, you're a bit behind. It only applies to outdated or irrelevant information anyway which I think is perfectly reasonable. I wouldn't call it censorship since information will still be accessible to anyone who goes looking for it.

    Who decides whether it is outdated or irrelevant?

    There is nothing reasonable about this law and just allows people and groups to hide their past behind.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    Who decides whether it is outdated or irrelevant?

    There is nothing reasonable about this law and just allows people and groups to hide their past behind.
    Obviously people will try to abuse the ruling to try and censor stuff which probably shouldn't be censored but I think the context in which the 'right to be forgotten was created', is perfectly reasonable: A Spanish man who didn't want reports of his home being repossessed in 1998, which was subsequently resolved, to be linked and burden him whenever someone googled his name. Why should he have his reputation diminished because journalists didn't think it was newsworthy enough to report the issue was resolved?

    Who decides whether information is outdated or irrelevant is probably left with google to decide, but I'm not sure having not read the intricate details of the case, who it seems are taking a cautious approach and removing stuff which doesn't need to be which is why links are being put back up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RumpeIstiltskin)
    Obviously people will try to abuse the ruling to try and censor stuff which probably shouldn't be censored but I think the context in which the 'right to be forgotten was created', is perfectly reasonable: A Spanish man who didn't want reports of his home being repossessed in 1998, which was subsequently resolved, to be linked and burden him whenever someone googled his name. Why should he have his reputation diminished because journalists didn't think it was newsworthy enough to report the issue was resolved?

    Who decides whether information is outdated or irrelevant is probably left with google to decide, but I'm not sure having not read the intricate details of the case, who it seems are taking a cautious approach and removing stuff which doesn't need to be which is why links are being put back up.

    It doesn't matter no one has a right to delete information, this law will allow companies to wipe negative reviews allow pedophile to hide their past. Reputation is no excuse to delete or hide information.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    It doesn't matter no one has a right to delete information, this law will allow companies to wipe negative reviews allow pedophile to hide their past. Reputation is no excuse to delete or hide information.
    You are misunderstanding the purpose of this law. As has been said it is for when information is outdated or no longer relevant

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Falcatas)
    It doesn't matter no one has a right to delete information, this law will allow companies to wipe negative reviews allow pedophile to hide their past. Reputation is no excuse to delete or hide information.
    No it won't.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 5, 2014
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.