Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   Corrupt politicians, bad doctors and child molesters flood Google with requests to take down information about themselves in wake of European court ruling   (bbc.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, European Court of Justice, Google, Europeans, regulations, European Commissioner, ICO, Jimmy Wales, DMCA takedowns  
•       •       •

4842 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 11:36 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-15 10:15:45 AM  
So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?

If I start a company, here and now, today, and put up a web page, incorporated in the US, server located in the US, the European Union can come around and say that I have to remove things from my website if they say it violates their laws?  Since when did the EU get global jurisdiction?

What's to stop Google from basically doing the same thing they did with DMCA takedowns, and remove the search links, but put up a link to the notice they got telling them to remove the search links, with URL's listed?

What's next?  China telling the entire web it has to take down everything about Tiennamen Square because it violates their laws?

Does that mean that Google will also be taking things down globally from YouTube when Islamic countries find them offensive, because their courts order it?
 
2014-05-15 10:22:48 AM  

Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?

What makes Google a "foreign" company as far as the EU is concerned?
 
2014-05-15 10:26:52 AM  
Some of those are good questions, however in this case the court considered the citizen's rights and not the corporation's rights.

The fact that it's difficult or impossible or awkward or whatever to enforce, doesn't change their opinion on what the rights of the citizen are.
 
2014-05-15 10:27:34 AM  
Sorry I meant to quote you Silverstaff
 
2014-05-15 10:49:07 AM  

exick: Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?
What makes Google a "foreign" company as far as the EU is concerned?


The fact it is incorporated in America, it's offices are in America, and its server farms are in America?

The media reports I've read about this, including from European sources such as the BBC all seem to say that the EU's courts ruled "Just because you're an American company with your offices and servers in California doesn't mean that European law doesn't apply to you!  If your website can be accessed from Europe and you have infomation about European citizens in your computer, we can regulate you no matter where in the world you are."
 
2014-05-15 10:52:02 AM  

Barfmaker: Some of those are good questions, however in this case the court considered the citizen's rights and not the corporation's rights.

The fact that it's difficult or impossible or awkward or whatever to enforce, doesn't change their opinion on what the rights of the citizen are.


China has a very different view of rights and speech.  So does Iran.  So does Pakistan.  Why does the EU get to dictate to Google when those countries couldn't, or at most could get specific content blocked in their countries only?

Why should I, as an American citizen, living in the US, have my web search results censored when searching on a search engine operated out of the US, because an EU court says so?
 
2014-05-15 10:53:26 AM  

Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?

If I start a company, here and now, today, and put up a web page, incorporated in the US, server located in the US, the European Union can come around and say that I have to remove things from my website if they say it violates their laws?  Since when did the EU get global jurisdiction?

What's to stop Google from basically doing the same thing they did with DMCA takedowns, and remove the search links, but put up a link to the notice they got telling them to remove the search links, with URL's listed?

What's next?  China telling the entire web it has to take down everything about Tiennamen Square because it violates their laws?

Does that mean that Google will also be taking things down globally from YouTube when Islamic countries find them offensive, because their courts order it?


Google is a multinational corporation.  Google sends almost 90% of its international revenue to Google of Ireland, which then transfers the money to an Irish shell company based in the Netherlands before it eventually makes its way to Bermuda.  It's all a giant tax dodge, but bboth Ireland and the Netherlands are EU members, so the lion's share of Google's overseas income travels through the EU.
 
2014-05-15 11:24:14 AM  
Personal privacy rights definitely trump the right of the public to have access to information. That's why I'm suing the government for making the sex offender registry public. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a job at a day care center when they can just Google your name and find out that you're a convicted pedophile!? It's not fair!!
 
2014-05-15 11:40:58 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-05-15 11:43:02 AM  
I suppose the next step is to force libraries to burn past periodicals and related news articles. After all, that kind of outdated information has no place being readily available to the public.

Makes is hard to re-write history when it's readily available to anyone with rudimentary typing skills and the ability to ask a question.
 
2014-05-15 11:44:38 AM  
Just google? Is it safe to assume this would apply to Bing through Duck Duck Go? If they specifically mention google in the ruling, I'm sure they can make a case for being unfairly called out.

Also, what about archive.org?

In print days, once the daily paper went out with its story, you couldn't very easily retract them all. Collect it from the newstands, sure, but not go into people's homes and yank the papers from their hands. Well, why should you be able to do that with the internet? Google is simply linking to various sites, am I right? Are those sites told to pull down information? Will they tell the Telegraph to pull stories? Twitter? Egads, I understand privacy as well, but there's no expectation of privacy in a public setting - or in Europe, is there?
 
2014-05-15 11:45:36 AM  
It appears Subby forgot to include the word "alleged" three times in the headline. Because only innocent people would want to have false accusations removed from the Internet.

And Subby could have put the word in quotes just for the sarcasm factor.
 
2014-05-15 11:46:39 AM  
"irrelevant and outdated"

This should make implementation relatively simple - they just need to remove references to anything that occured before 2012.
 
2014-05-15 11:59:29 AM  

Silverstaff: Barfmaker: Some of those are good questions, however in this case the court considered the citizen's rights and not the corporation's rights.

The fact that it's difficult or impossible or awkward or whatever to enforce, doesn't change their opinion on what the rights of the citizen are.

China has a very different view of rights and speech.  So does Iran.  So does Pakistan.  Why does the EU get to dictate to Google when those countries couldn't, or at most could get specific content blocked in their countries only?

Why should I, as an American citizen, living in the US, have my web search results censored when searching on a search engine operated out of the US, because an EU court says so?


An American complaining about a foreign court overreach? Do you have no concept of how your courts act towards foreign countries? How about the time a California court decided to assert jurisdiction over a ship wreck in Canadian waters, going so far as to order that an American flag be planted in Canadian territory with the literal intent being to make sure everyone knew that, notwithstanding it was Canada, an American court was in charge.

In this case, Google wants to operate and profit in the EU. They're not complaining about a lack of jurisdiction.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 12:04:41 PM  

Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?

If I start a company, here and now, today, and put up a web page, incorporated in the US, server located in the US, the European Union can come around and say that I have to remove things from my website if they say it violates their laws?  Since when did the EU get global jurisdiction?


Since the day Google established a business presence in the EU and for as long as Google want's to keep it that way.
.
 
2014-05-15 12:07:10 PM  

LeroyB: It appears Subby forgot to include the word "alleged" three times in the headline. Because only innocent people would want to have false accusations removed from the Internet.

And Subby could have put the word in quotes just for the sarcasm factor.


FTFA "A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped."
 
2014-05-15 12:16:20 PM  

Silverstaff: exick: Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?
What makes Google a "foreign" company as far as the EU is concerned?

The fact it is incorporated in America, it's offices are in America, and its server farms are in America?


Or maybe it's because they have offices and server farms in Europe?

https://www.google.com/about/datacenters/gallery/#/locations
 
2014-05-15 12:16:37 PM  
Can't good just say "We just link to the stuff. Take it up with whoever is hosting/publishing the info."
 
2014-05-15 12:28:38 PM  

Barfmaker: Some of those are good questions, however in this case the court considered the citizen's rights and not the corporation's rights.

The fact that it's difficult or impossible or awkward or whatever to enforce, doesn't change their opinion on what the rights of the citizen are.


It's not corporation versus citizen- this isn't really about Google's interests. It's citizen versus the public interest. Whether or not we, as the general public, have the right to access information about you that you, as a citizen, don't want out there. It's a ruling that will allow doctors to hide old malpractice suits, people to hide criminal pasts, prospective politicians to hide embarrassing moments...

It's a profoundly awful ruling.
 
2014-05-15 12:28:43 PM  

Silverstaff: exick: Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?
What makes Google a "foreign" company as far as the EU is concerned?

The fact it is incorporated in America, it's offices are in America, and its server farms are in America?

The media reports I've read about this, including from European sources such as the BBC all seem to say that the EU's courts ruled "Just because you're an American company with your offices and servers in California doesn't mean that European law doesn't apply to you!  If your website can be accessed from Europe and you have infomation about European citizens in your computer, we can regulate you no matter where in the world you are."



http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/inside/locations/index.html

Google has 3 data centres in the EU.

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/locations/

Google has 27 offices just in the EU (including CH and NO). That's more than in all of the Americas including combined (19 in US, 3 in Canada and 4 in Latin America - 26 in total).
 
2014-05-15 12:31:26 PM  

Kaltros: I suppose the next step is to force libraries to burn past periodicals and related news articles. After all, that kind of outdated information has no place being readily available to the public.

Makes is hard to re-write history when it's readily available to anyone with rudimentary typing skills and the ability to ask a question.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com

/Fahrenheit 451, anyone?
 
2014-05-15 12:31:44 PM  

SpectroBoy: Can't good just say "We just link to the stuff. Take it up with whoever is hosting/publishing the info."


Under this incredibly crappy ruling, no. Google is being told they have to remove access, the original articles still remain in existence. We're just not allowed to find them.
 
2014-05-15 12:37:25 PM  

Kaltros: I suppose the next step is to force libraries to burn past periodicals and related news articles. After all, that kind of outdated information has no place being readily available to the public.

Makes is hard to re-write history when it's readily available to anyone with rudimentary typing skills and the ability to ask a question.


You don't burn them, you just revise all the old articles to make sure they're correct. And we've always been at war with eastasia, what are you yammering on about?
 
2014-05-15 12:40:09 PM  
www.shirttrader.com

Here Google... take two of these. I'd ask you call me in the morning but you won't remember to do it.
 
2014-05-15 12:52:04 PM  

mod3072: Personal privacy rights definitely trump the right of the public to have access to information. That's why I'm suing the government for making the sex offender registry public. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a job at a day care center when they can just Google your name and find out that you're a convicted pedophile!? It's not fair!!


You might have a point if the whole being denied jobs thing was limited to just jobs working with kids.  Instead it applies to every job thus forcing someone back into a life of crime just to survive.  These search results do more harm to society than it helps.
 
2014-05-15 12:52:23 PM  
Even if Google or any other search engine WANTED to remove links to information about a pariticular person I don't think it could be done.  Somewhere on the interweb is a list of people who have demanded that their image, postings, techno dance moves be removed from the internet.
 
2014-05-15 01:04:59 PM  

Silverstaff: So, why does the European Union get to dictate to foreign companies how they have to censor the web?

If I start a company, here and now, today, and put up a web page, incorporated in the US, server located in the US, the European Union can come around and say that I have to remove things from my website if they say it violates their laws?  Since when did the EU get global jurisdiction?

What's to stop Google from basically doing the same thing they did with DMCA takedowns, and remove the search links, but put up a link to the notice they got telling them to remove the search links, with URL's listed?

What's next?  China telling the entire web it has to take down everything about Tiennamen Square because it violates their laws?

Does that mean that Google will also be taking things down globally from YouTube when Islamic countries find them offensive, because their courts order it?


This ruling, if it stands, will not do anything about content on websites. It "only" requires Google to remove results from searches. So your website with details of Joe Bloggs being prosecuted for child porn will still be there, it just won't come up in a Google search for "Joe Bloggs had child porn".

I guess I'll just try Bing. I assume most people will just tell Google to remove them and be too stupid to realise there are other search engines.

And the EU has the power to require Google to do this in the EU, just as Americans regulators and courts have the right to enforce, or not, net neutrality within the US. The EU can't make Google do anything for their users in the US or anywhere else.
 
2014-05-15 01:06:38 PM  
It would be pretty amusing if Google created a newsletter detailing each request, and then ranked it high in in its own search order. Seems like it would be technically relevant/current information & therefore exempt.

In other words, googling "jim jones" may no longer show up his prior conviction for child rape, but it would show his request for google to remove references to his prior conviction for child rape.
 
2014-05-15 01:06:45 PM  

Silverstaff: Why should I, as an American citizen, living in the US, have my web search results censored when searching on a search engine operated out of the US, because an EU court says so?


No one, not even the EU, is suggesting that. The ruling only applies to Google results inside the EU.
 
2014-05-15 01:19:02 PM  

Sentient: It would be pretty amusing if Google created a newsletter detailing each request, and then ranked it high in in its own search order. Seems like it would be technically relevant/current information & therefore exempt.

In other words, googling "jim jones" may no longer show up his prior conviction for child rape, but it would show his request for google to remove references to his prior conviction for child rape.


The Streisand effect.
 
2014-05-15 01:22:44 PM  

Sentient: It would be pretty amusing if Google created a newsletter detailing each request, and then ranked it high in in its own search order. Seems like it would be technically relevant/current information & therefore exempt.

In other words, googling "jim jones" may no longer show up his prior conviction for child rape, but it would show his request for google to remove references to his prior conviction for child rape.


Thinking about it, since this forces Google to remove results only to users within the EU you could design a tool to search Google in the EU and do the exact same search with your IP disguised and using Google's US website and then compare the two. This tool could then easily highlight results that have been censored.
It could make it really easy to find the exact information someone has tried to hide.

Any software people want to try it?
 
2014-05-15 01:36:20 PM  
seems like a dumb and wrong idea.

you can't hide anymore, sorry.
 
2014-05-15 01:46:01 PM  
Google should post each takedown request somewhere and return search results to that. And when they get a takedown request for that, take it down and post the takedown request for the takedown request. Repeat unto infinity.
 
2014-05-15 01:49:04 PM  

Kaltros: I suppose the next step is to force libraries to burn past periodicals and related news articles. After all, that kind of outdated information has no place being readily available to the public.

Makes is hard to re-write history when it's readily available to anyone with rudimentary typing skills and the ability to ask a question.


So this. Thank you for being alert.
 
2014-05-15 01:51:53 PM  

jjorsett: Google should post each takedown request somewhere and return search results to that. And when they get a takedown request for that, take it down and post the takedown request for the takedown request. Repeat unto infinity.


Oh, and the beauty of that system would be that third-party entities would spring up that collected those notices off the Google site and retained them. They could be made accessible by various impossible-to-censor means such as TOR.

Circumventing this ruling could be quite the fun hobby.
 
2014-05-15 01:53:28 PM  

cptjeff: SpectroBoy: Can't good just say "We just link to the stuff. Take it up with whoever is hosting/publishing the info."

Under this incredibly crappy ruling, no. Google is being told they have to remove access, the original articles still remain in existence. We're just not allowed to find them.


Just burn the card file. Mission accomplished.
 
2014-05-15 02:00:08 PM  

Kaltros: I suppose the next step is to force libraries to burn past periodicals and related news articles. After all, that kind of outdated information has no place being readily available to the public.

Makes is hard to re-write history when it's readily available to anyone with rudimentary typing skills and the ability to ask a question.


I don't know if you intended this to be tongue-in-cheek or just throwing out what you think is an extreme, "if-this-goes-on" example, but I fully expect that when this ruling doesn't result in enough "forgetting", that the next step will be demands for deletion of content, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a court might accede to those demands. Although I note their earlier ruling they did make a half-hearted concession to freedom of the press by exempting news organizations.

Which brings to mind this: can I hypothetically rebrand my site a "news-gathering site" instead of a search engine and get around the ruling that way? I see a lot of tussling ahead on the practical enforcement aspects of this whole thing.
 
2014-05-15 02:02:06 PM  
Flint Ironstag

Thinking about it, since this forces Google to remove results only to users within the EU you could design a tool to search Google in the EU and do the exact same search with your IP disguised and using Google's US website and then compare the two. This tool could then easily highlight results that have been censored.
It could make it really easy to find the exact information someone has tried to hide.

Any software people want to try it?


It already exists, because Google censoring results isn't anything new.
I remember seeing a websites where you could compare the results Google returns depending on which country's page you visit and your browser's language preference settings.

The only change is that it's not just for governments (e.g. Google China removing Tiananmen Square pictures) or corporations (e.g .Google US automated, unchecked removing of millions of links for machine-generated DMCA requests), but also people without suitcases full of money who can have a certain set of URLs removed from the results.
 
2014-05-15 02:04:19 PM  
If google had the slightest of integrity they would just shut down operations in countries that pull this nonsense.   Unfortunately it's a public company and that means they have no integrity and will literally gas people if it's legal and it makes a profit.
 
2014-05-15 02:28:20 PM  
jjorsett
jjorsett:
Google should post each takedown request somewhere and return search results to that. And when they get a takedown request for that, take it down and post the takedown request for the takedown request. Repeat unto infinity.

Oh, and the beauty of that system would be that third-party entities would spring up that collected those notices off the Google site and retained them. They could be made accessible by various impossible-to-censor means such as TOR.

Circumventing this ruling could be quite the fun hobby.


Never clicked on one of those links to chillingeffects.org that get inserted by Google to tell you they've removed URLs from your result?
Those URL lists in the takedown notices received by google can be a source to find pron and warez sites you didn't know about.

It's also educating, because you can clearly tell that most of those DMCA-based removal requests are machine-generated based on keyword matches and the matched and removed URLs are often clearly unrelated to the copyrighted works the removal requests are for:
So, Disney and HBO, about your conflicting claims of copyright ownership for "blonde biatch bambi gangbanged by band of brothers until cum's drizzlin from all holes hardcore whitechicksblackdicks xxx bukakke.mp4"..
 
2014-05-15 03:43:31 PM  
jjorsett: I don't know if you intended this to be tongue-in-cheek or just throwing out what you think is an extreme, "if-this-goes-on" example, but I fully expect that when this ruling doesn't result in enough "forgetting", that the next step will be demands for deletion of content, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a court might accede to those demands. Although I note their earlier ruling they did make a half-hearted concession to freedom of the press by exempting news organizations.

Which brings to mind this: can I hypothetically rebrand my site a "news-gathering site" instead of a search engine and get around the ruling that way? I see a lot of tussling ahead on the practical enforcement aspects of this whole thing.


Merely an observation on the absurdity of the requestors' position. That which has happened may be recorded by history. Requesting that this history be buried or intentionally removed from the public view is unwise at best.

Google does offer a news feed, which could endorse your supposition, until or unless TPTB attach an "accredited news agency" requirement.
 
2014-05-15 05:44:21 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Sentient: It would be pretty amusing if Google created a newsletter detailing each request, and then ranked it high in in its own search order. Seems like it would be technically relevant/current information & therefore exempt.

In other words, googling "jim jones" may no longer show up his prior conviction for child rape, but it would show his request for google to remove references to his prior conviction for child rape.

Thinking about it, since this forces Google to remove results only to users within the EU you could design a tool to search Google in the EU and do the exact same search with your IP disguised and using Google's US website and then compare the two. This tool could then easily highlight results that have been censored.
It could make it really easy to find the exact information someone has tried to hide.

Any software people want to try it?


All you have to do is use the TOR browser and you can do that right now.
 
2014-05-15 06:01:47 PM  
Google is being defined as a Data Controller.  The legal responsibilities for a Data Controller are set out in the Data Protection Directive, I think this was put forward in 1995, but is based on other laws such as Britain's Data Protection Act (1988) - which was changed in 1998 to bring it in line with DPD.

The thing that most people seem to be forgetting here is that the ruling and the law specifically exclude data that is of public interest.  So sex offenders, corrupt politicians etc?  They don't get to remove links about that.  The law is pretty much focussed on private citizens not public ones.

An EU citizen's personal data belongs to them.  Neither Google nor any of you people have a right to it.

Google was characterized as being a particularly high risk data controller not just because it is automated but because anybody can use it to find personal information about ordinary people quickly and easily to build a profile of an individual.

You might think it is very important that you know that some specific named Spanish guy had financial problems 20 years ago - but sane people disagree.  Personal data can be used to ostracize/unemploy those with unpopular opinions,lifestyles, religions, medical conditions or financial status.  Thus anybody handling it has responsibilities and duties to the individuals who own that data.

the Court holds that
a fair balance should be sought in
particular between that interest and the data subject's fundamental rights, in particular the right to
privacy and the right to protection of personal
data. The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it
is true
that the data subject's rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users,
this
balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question
and its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and on the interest of the public in having that
information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data
subject in public life
 
2014-05-15 06:31:41 PM  

AugieDoggyDaddy: Even if Google or any other search engine WANTED to remove links to information about a pariticular person I don't think it could be done.  Somewhere on the interweb is a list of people who have demanded that their image, postings, techno dance moves be removed from the internet.


CensoredOnGoogle.com to start up in 5, 4, 3, 2....
 
2014-05-15 06:40:35 PM  

Modulous: Google was characterized as being a particularly high risk data controller not just because it is automated but because anybody can use it to find personal information about ordinary people quickly and easily to build a profile of an individual.

You might think it is very important that you know that some specific named Spanish guy had financial problems 20 years ago - but sane people disagree.  Personal data can be used to ostracize/unemploy those with unpopular opinions,lifestyles, religions, medical conditions or financial status.  Thus anybody handling it has responsibilities and duties to the individuals who own that data.

the Court holds that
a fair balance should be sought in
particular between that interest and the data subject's fundamental rights, in particular the right to
privacy and the right to protection of personal
data. The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it
is true
that the data subject's rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users,
this
balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question
and its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and on the interest of the public in having that
information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data
subject in public life


But things like bankruptcy are clearly meant to be public knowledge. The state even publishes those records, and they have to be printed in local papers notices section, on court records etc.
Bankruptcy is you getting to walk away from your debts, a get out of jail free card. In return society, anyone who might do business with you, has the right to know that you have done this so they can decide whether to do business with you again.

Google is not publishing this data. It doesn't decide what information is published. It actually has no control at all over what is published. All it does is help people find it.
 
2014-05-15 06:58:01 PM  
Flint - the specifics of bankruptcy law are unknown to me.  I've been taking data protection exams at least once a year for most of my adult life.

But this was not a bankruptcy case.  It was a foreclosure of a home.  This could be me for any number of reasons, including being the victim of predatory lending.  The matter was fully resolved decades ago.  If a financial institution needs to know and has the right to know the individual had a foreclosure 20 years ago, they will already have access to the relevant databases and don't need Google.   Where is the pressing need for a neighbour or colleague to know this information?

In today's judgment , the Court of Justice finds, first of all, that by searching automatically, constantly and systematically for
information published on the internet, the operator of a search engine 'collects' data within the meaning of the directive.
The Court considers, furthermore, that the operator, within the framework of its indexing programmes, 'retrieves', 'records' and 'organises the data in question, which it then 'stores' on its servers and, as the case may be, 'discloses' and 'makes available' to its users in the form of lists of results. Those operations, which are referred to expressly and unconditionally in the directive,

 must be classified as 'processing', regardless of the fact that the operator of the search engine carries them out without distinction in respect of information other than the personal data.


...

The Court observes in this regard that, inasmuch as the activity of a search engine is additional to that of publishers of websites
and is liable to affect significantly the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, the operator of
the search engine must ensure, within the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities, that its activity complies with the directive's requirements.

.

.
 
2014-05-15 08:26:43 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Sentient: It would be pretty amusing if Google created a newsletter detailing each request, and then ranked it high in in its own search order. Seems like it would be technically relevant/current information & therefore exempt.

In other words, googling "jim jones" may no longer show up his prior conviction for child rape, but it would show his request for google to remove references to his prior conviction for child rape.

Thinking about it, since this forces Google to remove results only to users within the EU you could design a tool to search Google in the EU and do the exact same search with your IP disguised and using Google's US website and then compare the two. This tool could then easily highlight results that have been censored.
It could make it really easy to find the exact information someone has tried to hide.

Any software people want to try it?


Spoofing IP addresses has been around for ages, mainly for watching Hulu etc in 'wrong' country

But 99% of punters would never know how to, or want to, use them
 
2014-05-15 08:50:55 PM  

mjjt: Flint Ironstag: Sentient: It would be pretty amusing if Google created a newsletter detailing each request, and then ranked it high in in its own search order. Seems like it would be technically relevant/current information & therefore exempt.

In other words, googling "jim jones" may no longer show up his prior conviction for child rape, but it would show his request for google to remove references to his prior conviction for child rape.

Thinking about it, since this forces Google to remove results only to users within the EU you could design a tool to search Google in the EU and do the exact same search with your IP disguised and using Google's US website and then compare the two. This tool could then easily highlight results that have been censored.
It could make it really easy to find the exact information someone has tried to hide.

Any software people want to try it?

Spoofing IP addresses has been around for ages, mainly for watching Hulu etc in 'wrong' country

But 99% of punters would never know how to, or want to, use them


The spoofing part is easy, I use ZenMate for Chrome and it works great. I was thinking about something that would automatically compare the 'censored' EU results and the uncensored US result and highlight any differences, ie things that someone wanted censoring.
Like if someone gave you a newspaper with certain articles cut out. If you got an original copy of the paper and compared the two you would easily see exactly what someone didn't want you to see. In many cases this could actually be far worse. Something that might look innocent or trivial at first glance but that has been censored would make you wonder why and you'd look more closely. You might have missed it had it not been censored but now you know there is something significant there.
 
2014-05-15 09:28:48 PM  

Modulous: Flint - the specifics of bankruptcy law are unknown to me.  I've been taking data protection exams at least once a year for most of my adult life.

But this was not a bankruptcy case.  It was a foreclosure of a home.  This could be me for any number of reasons, including being the victim of predatory lending.  The matter was fully resolved decades ago.  If a financial institution needs to know and has the right to know the individual had a foreclosure 20 years ago, they will already have access to the relevant databases and don't need Google.   Where is the pressing need for a neighbour or colleague to know this information?

In today's judgment , the Court of Justice finds, first of all, that by searching automatically, constantly and systematically for
information published on the internet, the operator of a search engine 'collects' data within the meaning of the directive.
The Court considers, furthermore, that the operator, within the framework of its indexing programmes, 'retrieves', 'records' and 'organises the data in question, which it then 'stores' on its servers and, as the case may be, 'discloses' and 'makes available' to its users in the form of lists of results. Those operations, which are referred to expressly and unconditionally in the directive,
 must be classified as 'processing', regardless of the fact that the operator of the search engine carries them out without distinction in respect of information other than the personal data.


...

The Court observes in this regard that, inasmuch as the activity of a search engine is additional to that of publishers of websites
and is liable to affect significantly the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data, the operator of
the search engine must ensure, within the framework of its responsibilities, powers and capabilities, that its activity complies with the directive's requirements.
.

.


Google can only 'process' information that is in the public domain already. So why not tell the newspaper/blog/website/whatever that is actually publishing that information to take it down?
If Google were somehow finding out confidential private information and making it public then by all means prosecute them. But why ignore the people who are actually publishing it, perfectly legally, and go after Google who are doing nothing more than telling people where it is?

The problem I have with this decision is that it seems to benefit only people who actually have something to hide. If this information is already public domain then all Google has done is put us all back to where we were a hundred years ago, where people lived in small communities and if you had your home repossessed or were convicted of a crime then everyone in the community, who would have to do business with you, would know about it.

The rise of the information age and services such as Google are not the anomaly. It was the last hundred years between small communities where everyone knew everything and the rise of the internet when we again can know all about you, that period of anonymity, that was the anomaly.
 
2014-05-15 10:11:03 PM  
Google can only 'process' information that is in the public domain already. So why not tell the newspaper/blog/website/whatever that is actually publishing that information to take it down?

You can, and they'll probably ignore you.

What does this have to do with Google's responsibilities as a Data Controller?

  If Google were somehow finding out confidential private information and making it public then by all means prosecute them. But why ignore the people who are actually publishing it, perfectly legally, and go after Google who are doing nothing more than telling people where it is?

You may have noticed that Google do something pretty special.  They pull together disparate bits of data that can allow simpletons to build a profile of an individual.  Google isn't just telling people where it is - there is more information in the Google searches, and in the data that Google is using, than just URLs.

Nobody is going after Google.  An individual can ask Google to remove a link.  They can refuse.  The individual can take it to higher authorities if they want to pursue it.  There is no more going after Google here than there is for every single other Data Controller that operates in Europe.

The problem I have with this decision is that it seems to benefit only people who actually have something to hide.

Yes, it's called privacy.  Or do you assume that keeping things private is only done by immoral people?
  If this information is already public domain then all Google has done is put us all back to where we were a hundred years ago, where people lived in small communities and if you had your home repossessed or were convicted of a crime then everyone in the community, who would have to do business with you, would know about it.

I assume you haven't lived in a small community while being gay.  Or the wrong politicial persuasion.   Or the wrong religion?

There are consequences to everybody around you knowing personal information about you.  It leads to ostracization, job suppression, family break-ups, domestic abusers locating their victims....I truly hope you've never processed data before.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report