Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

silver surfer

Right To Be Forgotton

Recommended Posts

Jimmy wales talks sense on this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27407017

I dont see how the EU can expect google to be monitoring the uploads of billions of computers all over the world. Once its been downloaded, even if only once, its out of google's control, and can/will be uploaded by someone else. Bit like these private sex tapes Uploaded mistakenly for a minute, and already downloaded to thousands of computers, ready to be shared again.

Presumably, other than being a totalitarian nut, other pre-requisites for getting ahead in the EU include being technologically illiterate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, they probably know full well google (or anyone else for that matter) cant.

More likely they want google to fail to pave the way for draconian 'restrictions' (for our own wellbeing, of course)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone knows about the data protection act, then data the businesses hold must be relevant and up to date. Unless search engines become exempt and are to become "libraries" and archives of the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone knows about the data protection act, then data the businesses hold must be relevant and up to date. Unless search engines become exempt and are to become "libraries" and archives of the past.

Why is any such thing contingent on anyone's knowledge of the data protection act?

Search engines don't hold data, they hold metadata. Targeting google probably won't hold back the really subversive, which will work around it. But it will mean that when I search for someone's reputation before doing business with them, I can no longer expect to find the warnings if they're a serious fraudster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think more cases will come to court, and we're probably seeing the end of the "wild west" days of the internet as more regulation encroaches upon the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and the offence is?

The issue is that the content is still on line.

This silly law doesnt apply to content providers.

Then again, do something silly, and you are tarred for life at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a VPN to the US and your search is free of EU restrictions.

Just have the US ones instead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, they probably know full well google (or anyone else for that matter) cant.

More likely they want google to fail to pave the way for draconian 'restrictions' (for our own wellbeing, of course)

Google will clearly appeal and take it to the very top..

If they lose at the end of it they will have a clear choice. Hack at their search results every time someone wants that embarrassing school picture removed or quit the European stage entirely and base their servers exclusively in N America.

I think I know what they will choose. Europe will be worse off for it given the innovative products the search giant brings to market but that is the dribbling lefts privacy concerns for you.

Punish the postman instead of the person who posted the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not often I seem to agree with Google these days, but they're right on this one. If there's stuff out there that you never wanted out and escaped without permission that's an issue but it shouldn't be Google's issue. If you don't want your out of date stuff still visible then update it. Anything you've stuck on the internet (legally) is published, saying "remove it" is like ordering newspapers to remove that letter you wrote to them ten years ago from all archived copies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its started...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27423527

All the sort of stuff the public has a right to know.

The paedophile is likely to be on the sex register (for life). Is it right that is forgotten as well?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so shocking about this ruling is the link google has to remove is a pdf of a newspaper which mentioned his name in regard to a court hearing. These are allowed to be made public (except in certain cases).

http://hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/preview/1998/01/19/pagina-23/33842001/pdf.html

Mario actually tried to get the newspaper to take it down but they rightly told him where to go. That particular link actually contains a news story as well, so people searching for that story on google wouldn't be able to find it.

I agree that in many cases people should be allowed to have "personal" links about them removed from googles index, but in this particular case it was public knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you square your objections to the removal of a link to data with existing legislation? The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is designed to allow an individual not being compelled to disclose details of their past offences. Pre internet it was much more difficult to search for details and the individual could have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now even very mundane detail of an individual is available with little effort, surely the pendulum has swung to far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't find the judgment online. Plonkers. Just a press release link on the wikipedia page.

Here's a legal reaction, not necessarily better than the ****** we read in the press:

The ruling makes clear that a search engine such as Google has to take responsibility as a "data controller" for the content that it links to and may be required to purge its results even if the material was previously published legally. Data protection lawyers said the ruling meant that Google could no longer be regarded legally as a "neutral intermediary".

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=92365dc4-dae2-4d39-bdd6-eb8cd043597a

I'm a data controller and find the licence fee/insurance premium attaching to this just tedious, like anyone else in my position. But then I don't want my data getting out either.

So the real issue is whether Google should be considered a data controller of information already in the public domain. I guess they'll work a way around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you square your objections to the removal of a link to data with existing legislation? The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is designed to allow an individual not being compelled to disclose details of their past offences. Pre internet it was much more difficult to search for details and the individual could have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Now even very mundane detail of an individual is available with little effort, surely the pendulum has swung to far.

More difficult but it was possible. If the information is still legitimately public (e.g. it was once in a newspaper and no-one has questioned it being there) then trying to shut that out is rather disturbing. Issues of privacy revolve around whether particular information should be available in the first place, not whether it should be possible to find it if it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just contacted Google to ask them to remove links to all the stories about me.

It was all a long time ago, I was very young, as were the farmyard animals that were involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is any such thing contingent on anyone's knowledge of the data protection act?

Search engines don't hold data, they hold metadata. Targeting google probably won't hold back the really subversive, which will work around it. But it will mean that when I search for someone's reputation before doing business with them, I can no longer expect to find the warnings if they're a serious fraudster.

Well, there's also the wayback archive..

But as you say, this is going to be asymmetric. The wealthy/'elite'/fraudsters will be able to employ people to find any such information and get it removed. Everyone else won't have the time/ability to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.