Daily Deal: Lavasoft Ad-Aware Pro Security 2-Year Subscription
Virginia Police Force BBC Reporters To Delete Camera Footage Of Police Pursuit Of Shooter

Complaint To FTC Says It’s 'Deceptive' For Google To Not Recognize 'Right To Be Forgotten' In US

Overhype

from the what-the...? dept

Wed, Aug 26th 2015 10:45am — Mike Masnick
If you want an understanding of my general philosophy on business and economics, it's that companies should focus on serving their customers better. That's it. It's a very customer-centric view of capitalism. I think companies that screw over their customers and users will have it come back to bite them, and thus it's a better strategy for everyone if companies focus on providing good products and services to consumers, without screwing them over. And, I'm super supportive of organizations that focus on holding companies' feet to the fire when they fail to live up to that promise. Consumerist (owned by Consumer Reports) is really fantastic at this kind of thing, for example. Consumer Watchdog, on the other hand, despite its name, appears to have very little to do with actually protecting consumers' interests. Instead, it seems like some crazy people who absolutely hate Google, and pretend that they're "protecting" consumers from Google by attacking the company at every opportunity. If Consumer Watchdog actually had relevant points, that might be useful, but nearly every attack on Google is so ridiculous that all it does is make Consumer Watchdog look like a complete joke and undermine whatever credibility the organization might have.

In the past, we've covered an anti-Google video that company put out that contained so many factual errors that it was a complete joke (and was later revealed as nothing more than a stunt to sell some books). Then there was the attempt to argue that Gmail was an illegal wiretap. It's hard to take the organization seriously when it does that kind of thing.

Its latest, however, takes the crazy to new levels. John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's resident "old man yells at cloud" impersonator, recently filed a complaint with the FTC against Google. In it, he not only argues that Google should offer the "Right to be Forgotten" in the US, but says that the failure to do that is an "unfair and deceptive practice." Really.

As you know by now, since an EU court ruling last year, Google has been forced to enable a right to be forgotten in the EU, in which it will "delink" certain results from the searches on certain names, if the people argue that the links are no longer "relevant." Some in the EU have been pressing Google to make that "right to be forgotten" global -- which Google refuses to do, noting that it would violate the First Amendment in the US and would allow the most restrictive, anti-free speech regime in the world to censor the global internet.

But, apparently John Simpson likes censorship and supporting free speech-destroying regimes. Because he argues Google must allow such censorship in the US. How could Google's refusal to implement "right to be forgotten" possibly be "deceptive"? Well, in Simpson's world, it's because Google presents itself as "being deeply committed to privacy" but then doesn't abide by a global right to be forgotten. Really.
“The Internet giant aggressively and repeatedly holds itself out to users as being deeply committed to privacy. Without a doubt requesting the removal of a search engine link from one’s name to irrelevant data under the Right To Be Forgotten (or Right to Relevancy) is an important privacy option,” Consumer Watchdog’s complaint said. “Though Google claims it is concerned about users’ privacy, it does not offer U.S. users the ability to make such a basic request. Describing yourself as championing users’ privacy and not offering a key privacy tool – indeed one offered all across Europe – is deceptive behavior.”
That's, uh, not how this all works. In his complaint to the FTC, Simpson's theory is laid out in all its kooky nuttiness. Basically, because in the past we didn't have technology, and things would get forgotten thanks to obscurity -- and because Google claims to support privacy, it must magically pretend that we still live in such an age, and agree to forget stuff people want it to forget. He'd also, apparently, like Google to get off his lawn.
Here is why the Right To Be Forgotten – or Right of Relevancy – is so important to protecting consumers’ privacy in the digital age: Before the Internet if someone did something foolish when they were young – and most of us probably did – there might well be a public record of what happened. Over time, as they aged, people tended to forget whatever embarrassing things someone did in their youth. They would be judged mostly based on their current circumstances, not on information no longer relevant. If someone else were highly motivated, they could go back into paper files and folders and dig up a person’s past. Usually this required effort and motivation. For a reporter, for instance, this sort of deep digging was routine with, say, candidates for public office, not for Joe Blow citizen. This reality that our youthful indiscretions and embarrassments and other matters no longer relevant slipped from the general public’s consciousness is Privacy By Obscurity. The Digital Age has ended that. Everything – all our digital footprints – are instantly available with a few clicks on a computer or taps on a mobile device.

[....]

Google’s anti-consumer behavior around privacy issues is deceptive. The Internet giant holds itself out to be committed to users’ privacy, but does not honor requests that provide a key privacy protection. Google explains: “We know security and privacy are important to you – and they are important to us, too. We make it a priority to provide strong security and give you confidence that your information is safe and accessible when you need it. We’re constantly working to ensure strong security, protect your privacy, and make Google even more effective and efficient for you.” Recently Google said, “Protecting the privacy and security of our customers’ information is a top priority, and we take compliance very seriously.” In its Privacy & Terms Technologies and Principles Google claims, “We comply with privacy laws, and additionally work internally and with regulators and industry partners to develop and implement strong privacy standards… People have different privacy concerns and needs. To best serve the full range of our users, Google strives to offer them meaningful and fine-gained choices over the use of their personal information.”

In other words the Internet giant aggressively and repeatedly holds itself out to users as being deeply committed to privacy. Without a doubt requesting the removal of a search engine link from one’s name to irrelevant data under the Right To Be Forgotten (or Right to Relevancy) is an important privacy option. Though Google claims it is concerned about users’ privacy, it does not offer U.S. users the ability to make this basic request. Describing yourself as championing users’ privacy while not offering a key privacy tool – indeed one offered all across Europe – is deceptive behavior.
This is an absolutely insane interpretation of "deceptive." A company that supports user privacy is not being deceptive just because its definition of privacy doesn't match your crazy definition. It's just a different policy. If Google had flat out said that it would support a "right to be forgotten" in the US and then refused to process any requests, that would be deceptive. But accurately stating what the company does is not deceptive, no matter what Simpson seems to think.

What about the "unfair" part of "unfair and deceptive"? I honestly can't summarize the logic because there is none. Apparently, some people might not like what searches on their name turn up, and that's bad and thus... unfair?
Not offering Americans a basic privacy tool, while providing it to millions of users across Europe, is also an unfair practice. Acts or practices by a business are unfair under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act if they cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that consumers cannot reasonably avoid themselves and that is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.6 Here are some examples of people who have been harmed by Google’s refusal to honor Right of Relevancy or Right To Be Forgotten removal requests in the United States. Clearly there is no countervailing benefit in continuing to link to the items from search results. Consider these examples:
  • A young California woman was decapitated in a tragic auto accident. Photos from the grisly accident scene were wrongfully leaked by California Highway Patrol officers and posted to the Internet. A search on her name still returns the horrible photographs.
  • A guidance counselor was fired in 2012 after modeling photos from 20 years prior surfaced. She was a lingerie model between the ages of 18-20, and she had disclosed her prior career when she first was hired. Despite this, when a photo was found online and shown to the principal of her school, she was fired.
I don't see how any of this is "protecting consumers." It's seems quite the opposite, actually. It seems to be assuming that the public is made up of pure idiots who can't ever figure out context or understand that sometimes bad things happen. But that's not true. People learn and adapt and adjust to new technologies, even as people like John Simpson fear them. When cameras first started becoming popular they were banned from beaches because people might take photographs of other people there. But people grew up and realized that wasn't destroying anyone's privacy. Simpson has this weird infatuation not with protecting consumers, but with censoring the internet to keep the public from knowing factual information, because apparently he thinks the public can't handle it.

Last week, on On The Media, host Bob Garfield pointed out to Simpson how ridiculous all of this was, and Simpson doesn't have a single reasonable response. Garfield points out that public information, even embarrassing public information, is, by definition, not private information, and thus there's no privacy violation here. And all Simpson can do is pull his nostalgia gig about how things used to be different when people would forget your embarrassing things in the past. But that doesn't answer the question at all. It just makes Simpson seem totally out of touch with the modern world.
Hide this

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: consumers, deceptive, ftc, john simpson, privacy, right to be forgotten, unfair
Companies: consumer watchdog, google

51 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:54am

    Google does not make laws. Right to be forgotten is not an US law. It's an European one. Google is not required to enforce foreign laws in the US.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 5:05pm

      Re:

      It's amazing how often the American government expects its laws to be respected abroad.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 7:03pm

        Re: Re:

        So long as other countries/government continue to act as though they have to obey when the USG tells them to do something, the USG will continue to operate under the idea that US laws do apply globally, no matter how ridiculous this may be.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 7:30am

      Re:

      If Mr Simpson believes foreign laws should be enforced in the US, when was the last time he paid his VAT tax to the EU for purchases he made in the US?

      Why should anyone care what a criminal tax evader thinks?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:58am

    I have a common first and last name, googling me, even googling me + my home town, results in tons of results, how about privacy by being too common :)

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      mcinsand, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:34am

      sounds like built-in privacy

      Sounds like your parents stumbled on a great way to build in a shield for your privacy. Perhaps a less expensive way for those that want to be forgotten would be a name change and a PO box. Many states have a Springfield, Smithfield, or whatever, and, if privacy is that important, get a PO box there. Then, change your name to John or Johanna Smith, Bob Roberts, Darrin Stevens, Bugs Bunny, or any other name guaranteed to generate a bazillion hits.

      If you're Google privacy is that important, take advantage of how Google works!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:38am

      Re:

      I share a name with a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer and I'm not the only one. I'm fortunate to not have to worry about someone finding too much about me since they have to dig at least 30 pages deep to find anything and won't necessarily know which one is me.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:01am

    Photos from the grisly accident scene were wrongfully leaked by California Highway Patrol officers...

    Hmmm...so this is Google's fault?

    She was a lingerie model between the ages of 18-20, and she had disclosed her prior career when she first was hired. Despite this, when a photo was found online and shown to the principal of her school, she was fired.

    So what the guidance counselor did was perfectly legal, since she was in fact, an adult. Yet the school fired her because of it, and THIS is also Google's fault?

    SMH

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:05am

    For years, I found it completely unfair that I spent my youth working hard and staying out of trouble and people that acted like asshats are able to hide that fact through obscurity.

    Thank goodness the internet has fixed this problem.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:23am

    "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

    Google gets money from other corporations (and NSA) by selling our details. Though I make every effort I know to keep out of Google's view, it STILL gets and sells what can without MY consent.

    With that proper view of who Google's "customers" and who its privacy-less victims are, then you're yet again exposed as a corporatist. You do not care about the public's right to privacy from legal fictions; you actually believe that corporations have rights superior to persons.

    And so your rant here is serving your corporate masters. -- Indeed, Google funds you directly. Take the "Copia" link, people. This is NOT impartial opinion. It's amazing that even your fanboys let you get away with not mentioning that in EVERY Google piece, especially when defending. It's DECEPTIVE OF YOU to not state it.

    Next pro-corporatocracy piece, please.

    FIFTH attempt to comment!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:27am

      Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

      And someone tell me exactly where or how we'll ever stop Google from monetizing our privacy?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:39am

        Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

        Presumably, if you put it on the Internet, it's not meant to be private, no?
        So if you want Google to stop monetizing on YOUR privacy, then you simply need to keep YOUR shit private.

        Not hard at all, really.

        Makes me wonder why such a simple solution eluded you for so long...

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 9:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

          Not necessarily true. There are plenty of situations where you might want be able to post on the internet and still retain your privacy. Plenty of people participate in online discussion groups and do not want their postings to go beyond a trusted community. Ashley Madison leaps to mind obviously but there are plenty of far less controversial examples. It would be a pretty sad world if we had to give up one of the greatest things about the internet – communicating with like minds – because we all decided it was too difficult to retain a level of privacy.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That said, out_of_the_blue really should keep his shit private. No one wants to know about his fetishized Masnick wet dream.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 8:41am

          Re: Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

          "Presumably, if you put it on the Internet, it's not meant to be private, no?"

          Depends on where on the internet you put it. There are plenty of spaces on the internet that are intended to be completely private.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:39am

        Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

        ^^^ and that comment also went through on the 1st try.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:49am

        Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

        Easy. Don't use Google services and block all traffic to Google servers.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Michael, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:29am

      Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

      Thank you for your usual insightful and well-reasoned comment.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:32am

      Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

      What exactly is Google "getting" from you that did you not consent to give?

      Hint: It is the data you consented to give it.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:37am

      Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

      FIFTH attempt to comment!

      Hmmm...how unusual! My comments went through on the first try.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:40am

      Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

      block these ip ranges
      ip4:64.18.0.0/20
      ip4:64.233.160.0/19
      ip4:66.102.0.0/20
      ip4:66.249.80.0/20
      ip4:72.14.192.0/18
      ip4:74 .125.0.0/16
      ip4:108.177.8.0/21
      ip4:173.194.0.0/16
      ip4:207.126.144.0/20
      ip4:209.85.128.0/17
      ip4:216.58.192 .0/19
      ip4:216.239.32.0/19
      ip6:2001:4860:4000::/36
      ip6:2404:6800:4000::/36
      ip6:2607:f8b0:4000::/36
      ip6:280 0:3f0:4000::/36
      ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36
      ip6:2c0f:fb50:4000::/36

      and google is no more

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        DannyB (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

        Why would I want to block the IP ranges of a company that gives me a superior internet experience in exchange for showing me targeted ads?

        Google's ads, unlike almost all others, are surprisingly un-obnoxious.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 8:42am

          Re: Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

          It's pretty simple, really. I block them because I don't want Google to be spying on me.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:47am

      Hypocrisy much?

      "you actually believe that corporations have rights superior to persons."

      Considering the number of times that you've argued for the superior (copy)rights of corporations over regular citizens, you might want to rethink your approach to this argument.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 4:38pm

        Re: Hypocrisy much?

        Some folk are unable to recognize their own shortcomings and simply blame others.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:51am

      Re:

      Hey bro u mad cause they outed your employer?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:53am

      Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

      Hmm, has anybody seen John Simpson and ootb in the same room together?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 2:03pm

        Re: Re: "companies should focus on serving their customers better" -- But I'm not Google's customer! I'm it's PRODUCT.

        yeh whenever i happen to be in the same room as either of them

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      ottermaton (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 4:39am

      Re: Report the troll AND his "followers"

      Everyone who replies to the troll DESERVES a report click

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 11:50am

      Ha, haaaaa! :-)

      FIFTH attempt to comment!

      What a nutbar! What an imbecile! What an ultra-maroon!

      I'm sure you can find some ambulance chaser who'll sue Google for stalking you. What are you waiting for? Oh, wait. That'll wind up making yourself even more (in)famous.

      Ah, do it anyway! What've you got to lose? It's not like anyone's ignorant of your shortcomings by now. Google's telling the whole world (and the aliens listening in) what you've been up to all along! Aiiiiee!!!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Goyo (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 11:54am

    Simpson is being deceptive and unfair when he says thet Google is offering a basic privacy tool to millions of users across Europe.

    Google is just being forced by the law to comply with certain requirements in certain countries. That has nothing to do with offering a privacy tool.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ArkieGuy (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:03pm

    Define "customer"

    I have a couple of thoughts on this:

    First, the customer of a search engine is the person SEARCHING, not the person whose name is searched for. When Google says it protects its customers information, it is talking about people who sign up with Google for Google services. It's not talking about names it has listed in search results.

    Second, Google is only indexing what is SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!!! If you think you have the "right to be forgotten", you need to contact the company / site that has the information and have THEM remove the info from the internet then it will quit being indexed by Google.

    Blaming Google for doing exactly what it is there to do seems disingenuous at best.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:36pm

      Re: Define "customer"

      ...the customer of a search engine is the person SEARCHING...

      Unless the person searching has signed into an account the search engine won't know the identity of the actual person searching. It is not unusual for several people to share a PC or tablet; thus unless there is a login identifier the search engine only knows what was being searched. And it is not unusual for a person to use a friend's PC or tablet or smart phone to do a search. Trying to develop a marketing profile based solely on search terms is problematic at best. At worst advertisers will waste money trying to advertise to the wrong market(s). I still chuckle when I get an ad from a business that's 2-3 hours driving time away from me because they think I live in those neighborhoods.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:07pm

    it's more deceptive of those who do naughty things and demand them 'to be forgotten' in order to keep them or their families or companies, whatever out of the picture rather than let the world know what happened and hold the person(s) accountable! isn't this another way of keeping the people from knowing what a bunch of lying, cheating, two-faced ass holes politicians and company bosses are? they want to be able to do any number of unspeakable things but dont want to be help to account for what they did!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Sheogorath (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:13pm

    Consumer Watchdog, on the other hand, despite its name, appears to have very little to do with actually protecting consumers' interests. Instead, it seems like some crazy people who absolutely hate Google, and pretend that they're "protecting" consumers from Google by attacking the company at every opportunity.
    Oh, yeah. I think some of their members accuse Mike of being a Google shill whenever someone (not always Mike) writes an article about the company, good or bad.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Todd Shore (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:33pm

    Ah, back in the good old days when everyone in your town knew about your past and would happily hold it against you to the point that you might feel the need to uproot and move across the country where it was legal for someone to follow you, point, and shriek like you were a body snatcher.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 12:40pm

    Well we need to find the dirt on John, time for techdirt followers to find the things John want to be forgotten, they must be a doozie if he thinks the right to be forgotten is a voluntary feature in Europe.

    What is John Hiding? What is he scared of? Is he a secret Crossdresser, does he love Hitler? Is it worse than that? Guess we should find out, as usually the one who screams the loudest is the one who has the most to hide.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 1:10pm

    A young California woman was decapitated in a tragic auto accident. Photos from the grisly accident scene were wrongfully leaked by California Highway Patrol officers and posted to the Internet. A search on her name still returns the horrible photographs.

    As tragic and disgusting as that is... how is it at all relevant (yes, that important word cuts both ways) to the question at hand? The thing about decapitation victims is, they're dead, and so there's really not much a modification of search engine results can do to improve their life.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 1:13pm

    Poor, poor internet we have now.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 26 Aug 2015 @ 1:55pm

    Maybe if Simpson would stop embarrassing himself in public, then we could forget about him?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 2:59pm

    We have a right to comedy in the US!

    Forget the right to be forgotten.

    I want the laughs from the idiots who want to be forgotten.

    Nobody is too high and mighty to get laughed at in the US. Isn't what what our founders wanted?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 4:41pm

    Your right to be forgotten infringes upon my right to remember, so piss off ya bloody bugger.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Zonker, 26 Aug 2015 @ 5:09pm

      Re:

      (Put's on Ray-Bans)

      Have a look at this Neuralyzer... uh, "flashy thing" for just a second...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 26 Aug 2015 @ 5:31pm

    nursing home

    Maybe he can have his guardians request that background checks not be made on his caretakers in his nursing home.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 26 Aug 2015 @ 10:17pm

    It seems to be assuming that the public is made up of pure idiots who can't ever figure out context or understand that sometimes bad things happen.
    That can easily happen when you judge others by one's own standards, just ask Simpson. It takes one idiot to know one.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TDR, 27 Aug 2015 @ 11:34am

    Doh!

    In the words of another famous (and apparently, smarter than this one) Simpson:

    "Doh!"

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 27 Aug 2015 @ 11:35am

    Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    And all Simpson can do is pull his nostalgia gig about how things used to be different when people would forget your embarrassing things in the past. But that doesn't answer the question at all. It just makes Simpson seem totally out of touch with the modern world.

    Actually, it makes me curious as to what in his past Simpson is hoping will stay hidden. What's he been up to, I wonder?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    robin in the hood, 27 Aug 2015 @ 2:34pm

    i don't give a good gosh darn what that monster says

    Google sells out to highest bidders around the planet and when someone around the planet doesn't like what google does, google runs back to the USA and cries boohoo.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 9:21am

    Free press

    You should go listen to the audio if you haven't. You can hear gems like Simpson describing what a strong pro-freedom of press decision the right to be forgotten was. o_0

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ShivaFang (profile), 2 Sep 2015 @ 8:15am

    Global Censorship?

    If Google is required to apply UK's law worldwide, it would also have to be required to apply China's broad-reaching censorship laws as well. Additionally, it would also have to abide by Sharia Law due to the several Muslim states where religious law is also State law.

    Is this the kind of world we want to live in?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


Daily Deal: Lavasoft Ad-Aware Pro Security 2-Year Subscription
Virginia Police Force BBC Reporters To Delete Camera Footage Of Police Pursuit Of Shooter
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.