EU right to be forgotten - good idea or state enforced censorship?

[BlkHawk]

Recently an EU court decided individuals have the right to have Google remove links to material they find embarrassing.

I could see something like this being useful for those who were under 18 at the time of the Internet posting. Remove all those baby photos mom posted to Facebook, or the time you thought it would be funny to moon the camera. Under 18 makes since to me. Adults not so much, at least not without a strong review process, and maybe not even then. Plus if the EU decides corporations are individuals and have the same rights, whoa, set back and watch the insanity.

Some of the first requests so far:

A former politician running for office wants links to his previous behavior in office removed.

A convicted pedophile wants links related to his crimes removed.

A doctor wants negative reviews from his patients removed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527

I don't know anything about about the court involved, but it seems like it is a case of a judge ruling on a technical issue they know nothing about.

 

[BlkHawk]

More take down requests:

A man who tried to kill his family wants links to the article about it removed.

A man who ran a tax scam wants links to that story removed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27439194

Looks like if you live in the EU you can now have a whitewashed past no matter how big of a POS you are.

 

[MustBeGood]

Great point, people trying to get away with crimes by erasing their net searches like looking up things on how to make a pipe bomb.

 

[BlkHawk]

It isn't just search history being removed, but links to actual articles. Take the case of the politician, the BBC didn't name him so we will go hypothetical. For instance let's say there is a news article about his previous time in office, it highlights he arrived late, left early, and spent a great deal of money on furnishing the office.

Now if he is offended by that he can contact Google and ask them to remove all links to that article, so when someone does a search on his name that article doesn't come up. If it is libel I can see having a way to remove it, but if it is the truth, that's whitewashing at best, and censorship at worst.

 

[Will E Worm]

A former politician running for office wants links to his previous behavior in office removed.

A convicted pedophile wants links related to his crimes removed.

A doctor wants negative reviews from his patients removed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27423527

Things like this should not be removed.

We have the right to know about things.

Commit a crime and suffer the consequences.

 

[MustBeGood]

It isn't just search history being removed, but links to actual articles. Take the case of the politician, the BBC didn't name him so we will go hypothetical. For instance let's say there is a news article about his previous time in office, it highlights he arrived late, left early, and spent a great deal of money on furnishing the office.

Now if he is offended by that he can contact Google and ask them to remove all links to that article, so when someone does a search on his name that article doesn't come up. If it is libel I can see having a way to remove it, but if it is the truth, that's whitewashing at best, and censorship at worst.

There are companies in America that can also have links removed that were written as liable against a business by a rival.

But removing links that tell the truth should not be allowed.

 

[mongo18]

Yeah but holy shit, who is going to decide what is "truth?" Every single lawyer that ever was, is or will be will have more work than they can handle until the end of time.

 

[MustBeGood]

Yeah but holy shit, who is going to decide what is "truth?" Every single lawyer that ever was, is or will be will have more work than they can handle until the end of time.

The truth means over whelming evidence on a person, company, etc guilt or crimes.

 

[BlkHawk]

Update:

British journalist discovers blog he wrote in 2007 has now been removed from Google EU searches. The article named the former boss at Merrill Lynch who was forced out of the company after bad investments.

From Robert Peston:

Now in my blog, only one individual is named. He is Stan O'Neal, the former boss of the investment bank Merrill Lynch.

My column describes how O'Neal was forced out of Merrill after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.

Is the data in it "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant"?

Hmmm.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581

 

[hawk2005]

It will be used mostly by the rich, not good!

 

[luckyeight]

So far everyone who tries it ends up getting extra attention lol

 

[Johan]

More take down requests:

A man who tried to kill his family wants links to the article about it removed.

A man who ran a tax scam wants links to that story removed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27439194

Looks like if you live in the EU you can now have a whitewashed past no matter how big of a POS you are.

If you don't make laws that could be used by criminals, you never makes laws because they could all be torn and used by criminals.

You gotta remeber that, sometimes, other people than you publish embarassing pictures of you. I think anyone should have some control of their image on internet.

 

[BlkHawk]

If you don't make laws that could be used by criminals, you never makes laws because they could all be torn and used by criminals.

You gotta remeber that, sometimes, other people than you publish embarassing pictures of you. I think anyone should have some control of their image on internet.

The problem comes in the review process, there isn't one. Google decides what is removed and what isn't. In my first post I mentioned it isn't a bad idea for embarrassing photos etc., but it is being abused. The EU courts passed this, now the EU needs to set up a civilian review committee to make sure it isn't being abused to whitewash your past. If the EU doesn't have the money to fund a committee to regulate the tens of thousands of requests per month, well tough shit they passed the law.

 

[Johan]

The problem comes in the review process, there isn't one. Google decides what is removed and what isn't. In my first post I mentioned it isn't a bad idea for embarrassing photos etc., but it is being abused. The EU courts passed this, now the EU needs to set up a civilian review committee to make sure it isn't being abused to whitewash your past. If the EU doesn't have the money to fund a committee to regulate the tens of thousands of requests per month, well tough shit they passed the law.

You want to commitee to review every single request, to review the pictures of people having a lap-dance for their bachelor party, picture of girls flashing their boobies while dancing on a table in some club, etc... Seriously ?! You must be kiddin' !

But I see your point and I think the best way to deal with that would be that the laws only concerns "private" stuff : pictures published on facebook (or any other social network) articles written on a blog, etc... That it does not concern things such as press articles or customers/patients/users reviews

 

[BlkHawk]

You want to commitee to review every single request, to review the pictures of people having a lap-dance for their bachelor party, picture of girls flashing their boobies while dancing on a table in some club, etc... Seriously ?! You must be kiddin' !

But I see your point and I think the best way to deal with that would be that the laws only concerns "private" stuff : pictures published on facebook (or any other social network) articles written on a blog, etc... That it does not concern things such as press articles or customers/patients/users reviews

Bingo, it needs to be limited, press, reviews, court cases shouldn't be touched. I don't think that will happen as court records on a foreclosure are what prompted this ruling. Mostly hyperbole yes, but I think I got the point across about how hard it will be to prevent the abuse of something like this.

 

[Johan]

About court cases, it can be erased just like that, 'cause it's official, it comes from the government, there fore you need to have a judge or someone like that ageeing it has to be erased to have it erased.