I'm glad they caught up with the passenger who pretended to be doodling as he hatched his terrorist plot.
The most egregious aspect of this, in my view, is that he used pen and paper - clearly a move designed to prevent the forces of law and order from following the bouncing ball as they would have done had he kept his 'doodles' in the cloud where all law-abiding citizens put theirs.
Re: There are public data term limits to apply, but the court bodged it royally
From the cited blog: "In my humble opinion, the resolution of the court should have been to (quietly) order the Newspaper to remove (or obfuscate) his name from that article at source".
Ridiculous. How does a court make a 'quiet' order? The judgment of the court is public record.
... we're only hearing about Google because... well, a cynic would say because what's happened is all PR, with no substance.
We're hearing about it because it was Google that brought the case to the Spanish High Court, and therefore Google was listed as a party when that court stayed proceedings and referred it to the EU Court.
Summary
A Spaniard, Mr Mario González, was concerned that when his name was 'Googled' it showed him involved in a property sale that had gone bad in 1998. He did not dispute the accuracy of the result, but believed that it painted him in a bad light and it was reasonable to have the search results nullified so that such old details would not come to light. Google declined to act in accordance with his wishes, and González approached Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, the Data Protection Agency. The Agency ruled in his favour, And Google appealed to the Audiencia Nacional (High Court). This led to a request for a preliminary ruling in the CJEU as to whether Google was included in the Data Protection Directive, and whether there was in fact a 'right to be forgotten'. In the judgment, Google was included in the scope of the Directive, but of more importance, the Court held that search engines must provide a mechanism to remove search results that are 'inadequate, irrelevant or excessive'. This is of greater significance in that the Regulation will soon be replaced with a new General Data Protection Regulation, which is based on a proposal in 2012. That Regulation includes a 'right to be forgotten', called a 'right to erasure' in which an individual has a limited set of rights to demand that search engines cease providing links to certain results related to that individual.
If you were to read the judgment, and the advocate's opinion (with which the Court agreed), you would realise that they understand very well how the Internet works. And it's clear that they do not think that the Internet is Google.
If you can't understand how it applies to Bing, which was not a party to the proceedings, I guess you can't understand how the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v Bolton apply to anyone except Norma L. McCorvey, Henry Wade, Sandra Cano and Arthur Bolton.
On the post: Proposed Terror Law Would Allow Australia's Entire Internet To Be Monitored With Just One Warrant
Police shoot man in Melbourne
Oh, you did confuse matters.
On the post: Australian Man Booted From Plane After Passenger Complains About His 'Terroristic' Notepad Doodles
Doodle all the day
The most egregious aspect of this, in my view, is that he used pen and paper - clearly a move designed to prevent the forces of law and order from following the bouncing ball as they would have done had he kept his 'doodles' in the cloud where all law-abiding citizens put theirs.
On the post: DailyDirt: Don't Eat Fat. Or Sugar. How About Just Less Of Everything?
Sugar treatment by the body
Sugar is a label for several substances. Sucrose, glucose and fructose are but three of them.
On the post: DailyDirt: Don't Eat Fat. Or Sugar. How About Just Less Of Everything?
Saccharin
Long since refuted - http://tinyurl.com/27dte24
"there's a lot of studies linking aspartame to diseases like alzhimers [sic.]"
Convincingly refuted: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/3496.htm
On the post: Australian Officials Pushing For Data Retention Had No Idea What A VPN Is
Re:
So from your lofty all-knowing perch you have disdain for older people because they don't know as much as younger people about newer technology.
That tells us little about older people but much about you.
On the post: Australian Officials Pushing For Data Retention Had No Idea What A VPN Is
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: FedEx Indicted For Failing To Look Into Its Packages To See If Any Online Pharmacies Were Sending Drugs
Re:
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: There are public data term limits to apply, but the court bodged it royally
Ridiculous. How does a court make a 'quiet' order? The judgment of the court is public record.
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: Smoke Screen?
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: Re: just Google?
We're hearing about it because it was Google that brought the case to the Spanish High Court, and therefore Google was listed as a party when that court stayed proceedings and referred it to the EU Court.
Summary
A Spaniard, Mr Mario González, was concerned that when his name was 'Googled' it showed him involved in a property sale that had gone bad in 1998. He did not dispute the accuracy of the result, but believed that it painted him in a bad light and it was reasonable to have the search results nullified so that such old details would not come to light. Google declined to act in accordance with his wishes, and González approached Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, the Data Protection Agency. The Agency ruled in his favour, And Google appealed to the Audiencia Nacional (High Court). This led to a request for a preliminary ruling in the CJEU as to whether Google was included in the Data Protection Directive, and whether there was in fact a 'right to be forgotten'. In the judgment, Google was included in the scope of the Directive, but of more importance, the Court held that search engines must provide a mechanism to remove search results that are 'inadequate, irrelevant or excessive'. This is of greater significance in that the Regulation will soon be replaced with a new General Data Protection Regulation, which is based on a proposal in 2012. That Regulation includes a 'right to be forgotten', called a 'right to erasure' in which an individual has a limited set of rights to demand that search engines cease providing links to certain results related to that individual.
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: Re: Re: Re: just Google?
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: Re: Re: just Google?
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: Re: Re: just Google?
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ruling referred to search engines, not to Google.
On the post: Google Restores Some Links To Articles Removed In 'Right To Be Forgotten' Mess
Re:
On the post: Goldman Sachs Asks Court To Have Google Delete An Email With Client Info; Google Blocks Access To The Email
Re: I don't have much of a problem with this.
On the post: German Government Hires DC Law Firm To Threaten Its Own Parliament With Criminal Prosecution For Talking To Snowden
On the post: German Government Hires DC Law Firm To Threaten Its Own Parliament With Criminal Prosecution For Talking To Snowden
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: German Government Hires DC Law Firm To Threaten Its Own Parliament With Criminal Prosecution For Talking To Snowden
Re: Re:
On the post: Would You Hire Former NSA Boss Keith Alexander For Cybersecurity Consulting?
Next >>