Pedophile, Embarrassed Politician And Disliked Doctor Kick Off Attempts To Delete Their Histories From Google
from the yeah,-that'll-work dept
We've already written about a dangerous ruling from the EU Court of Justice that says that Google can be forced to stop linking to factual information about someone online. Not surprisingly, people with pasts they wish everyone would forget have already started lining up to get those embarrassing histories wiped. According to the BBC:An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.This is exactly what people predicted would happen. The EU court has more or less opened the door to widespread censorship of factual information that people find embarrassing. Those who keep cheering this ruling on as a victory for "privacy" don't seem to understand what privacy means. Public information about bad things you did is not private information. People may not like having it online and available, but it is difficult to see a legitimate reason for pulling it off.
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: europe, free speech, privacy, right to be forgotten
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A formal request...
NOT Respectfully submitted,
Out Of The Blue JD/PhD
Secret confirmation code to ensure security code:
qwertyuiop.867-5309
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A formal request...
Fuck you!
sincerely
-The Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A formal request...
Not respectfully replying (in case it isn't obvious),
A Techdirt reader who thinks you should really just go fuck yourself JD/PhD/MS/GFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A formal request...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A formal request...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I find it ironic that the EU justices went after Google, instead of the actual websites hosting the 'infringing' content. I suppose it makes sense to handle it this way, if you view Google as the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pasts They Wish Everyone Would Forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pasts They Wish Everyone Would Forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Natural Right"
Yeah, and, after you're prosecuted under the man-made law and sent to prison, you can recite that mantra to your cell-mate as he sodizes you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Natural Right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Natural Right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Natural Right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Natural Right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for "irrelevant" information: irrelevant with respect to what, exactly? If it's irrelevant to what you're searching for, then you're probably not using the right search terms (Google is very careful about providing results which are relevant to your choice of keywords). If it's irrelevant in a more general sense, however, it makes me wonder why it was ever considered relevant enough to be published.
To recognize "irrelevant and outdated" as valid standard for the law is to require that speech be relevant and up to date. That's a ridiculous standard upon which to judge a person's right to speak about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An interesting question about surveillance cameras in Europe; does anyone have the right to have footage wiped?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display ..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
(from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Objection your honor, my client would like this information deleted as he finds it embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We at Google have responded to your request, and have listed you as both a painter, an author, and a reknown moustache trend-setter.
To complete the job, we have also re-defined "Godwin's Law" as:
"In any Internet discussion, it is only a matter of time before someone feigns being a doge or a cat who mis-spells words like "i can has cheezburger".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well that didn't take long
Ex-politician wanting links to articles about his activities in office removed? Screw you buddy, you're a public figure, you don't get that luxury.
Man convicted of having child porn wants links about his conviction taken down? You're a sex offender dirtbag, you lost any "right-to-be-forgotten" a long time ago.
As for the doctor? No. Just... no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the US, the name and address of convicted pedophiles are required to be posted online mixed in with anyone convicted of public nakedness, committing a lude act (funny or not), and anyone who was caught with a prostitute - presumably so you cannot tell who has actually done something you should be concerned about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Public information about bad things you did is not private information. People may not like having it online and available, but it is difficult to see a legitimate reason for pulling it off.
While I'd hate to be made to pay for something stupid I did for the rest of my life, the smart thing to do is get it expunged by asking the site on which the information is held to remove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Removed from search result
- Adolf Hitler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Removed from search result
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Removed from search result
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Removed from search result
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wonder...
Other search engines - who knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My legal name is "Disney Hollywood Movie Download Free". I insist that you remove the search results for any part of my name.
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John Smiths
- specific pages
- as results of searches based on the person's name
- if the information is not still relevant to the public at large
- (and the requester can document that he is the person referred to on the page)
Google shouldn't get to decide #3, and #4 is bloody hard, so just reject all requests and let the "privacy seeking individual" escalate it to the courts if they are serious.
The "early adapters" are probably politicians trying to make a story about themselves, and they are public figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this create a market opportunity for other search providers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this create a market opportunity for other search providers?
Yes. That is one of the many issues. I would say their plan has a few holes in it, but is is more like their holes have a little plan around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useful Ruse
Of course they do. That doesn't mean that it isn't a useful ruse to accomplish other objectives, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Policy implosion
Tragically, I find myself hoping for copyright and patent maximalists to get their wishes for exactly the same reason. It is unlikely that there will ever be any sanity in those areas until after they have completely destroyed the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to Free Speech
The only situation I can see where it would not be is if I posted something about myself (ie a stupid picture) and decided it was a poor decision. This is the only situation where it seems someone should be allowed to demand something is erased from the internet, if it is even possible to truly delete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forbidden List
"Mentioning that took bribes in the form of access to livestock in exchange for government contracts is forbidden. Also forbidden is mentioning that was given negative reviews for doing routine surgery drunk and causing no less than three people to lose limbs and two deaths. Likewise you can't mention that was found with two terabytes of child pornography."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dont care what the other points are, that one shows that they have nothing real to report
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right to be forgotten
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re:Re:
The whole reason the concept of records expungement even exists is the idea that people shouldn't be held over a barrel for something they did for the rest of their lives. Naturally, there are some offenses for which there is no records expungement, some people lose the right to expungement if reoffending, etc, etc, etc... All these protocols were put into place BEFORE the internet existed and became a permanent digital dossier on people. Likewise, public records laws are rooted in a time when government records weren't digitally available and regurgitated into peoples living rooms for fun and profit.
Does 'right to be forgotten' have issues to sort out? Yes, for example, the pedophile or doctor with legit complaints thing. That's a tricky world but as with all laws, there is rarely a black and white answer. I think its possible to err on the side of free speech but while allowing a mechanism to keep peoples lives from being ruined. The devil will be in the details, idealogues won't like it either way but the internet really changed the game and requires a fresh look at how information is distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]