This is how data protection works already, though. Bodies such as government agencies and corporations should not keep information for longer than it is useful, and you have the right to ask for it to be removed from their records.
Google looses right to be forgotten case in EU
- Thread starter Silurian
- Start date
This is how data protection works already, though. Bodies such as government agencies and corporations should not keep information for longer than it is useful, and you have the right to ask for it to be removed from their records.
^Yes, and one should also note that there are literally hundreds of websearch engines, and only a fraction of those link to google. That is without counting the so-called 'metasearch engines' which usually are just an automatic collection of hits by a number of engines.
While, in theory (but not really in practice) one could get google to routinely check if specific terms (???) turn up in its searches, it is impossible to do the same for "all search engines", cause they are hardly run by multi-billion $ websites.
While, in theory (but not really in practice) one could get google to routinely check if specific terms (???) turn up in its searches, it is impossible to do the same for "all search engines", cause they are hardly run by multi-billion $ websites.
Not in any meaningful sense. There are about a dozen English-language general-web search engines.
Only really Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yandex have any significant use.
If searching your name for something doesn't show up on any of those you can probably be 99% sure it doesn't show up anywhere else either.
Maybe, but it is not like google hits are presenting everything that is linked by any site. Furthermore if one 'regular' person (ie not one who is into tricky business anyway) wants to erase some stuff tied to him/her online, this is not going to happen even if you only get the main search engines to somehow not link to that stuff (which chances are won't have always the same term as a name, even if it still includes a name linked to that person).
That is not even over-ruling the probably impossible task to cancel all links to specific terms (eg family/full name or other clear allusion/catchphrase etc) in a large searchengine like google.
No real reason to assume that:
a) if an employer is set to search online for you, he won't be able to,
b) if you mean to erase something for non-job related reasons, you stand to manage much even on one search-engine.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
True if you use a very broad definition of censorship.
So what ?
If we're talking abstract concepts, I'm much more concerned about privacy than censosrhip.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
It is good.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
If Yahoo, Facebook, CFC etc do not prevent a search that you have asked them to prevent and the Information Commissioner (or what ever the organisation is in your EU country) agrees then you could go to court for damages. It is up to them to prevent the search.
Are you saying that this is what the ruling could mean, or what it actually does mean? Having not read the ruling myself, I'm a little confused as to whether your position is about the general idea, or this specific case and its actual implications.
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
I have not read the decision.
From what I have heard, the particulars about the applicability of the decision are unclear at this time. the instant decision dealt with a mortgage foreclosure, so voiding business records is certainly a possibility.
From what I have heard, the particulars about the applicability of the decision are unclear at this time. the instant decision dealt with a mortgage foreclosure, so voiding business records is certainly a possibility.
I think it is a good thing, if it can be implemented reasonably.
azzaman333
meh
I'm confused. Why is it Google's responsibility to take down this information rather than the source of the information?
azzaman333
meh
But if the source takes it down, Google can't exactly find it when searching for it. Right?
^All those are horrible paradigms (and in my view most of all the one about the doctor, cause if he harmed people due to his bad practice it is pretty much disgusting to allow him to hide that on the web).
The pedophile one may be equally (or even more, i suppose) horrible, but at least there in theory there might be a lesser danger by now, whereas the doctor would again be practising.
The politician one is more of the same crap.
The pedophile one may be equally (or even more, i suppose) horrible, but at least there in theory there might be a lesser danger by now, whereas the doctor would again be practising.
The politician one is more of the same crap.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
That timing!
These europeanists think that they'll fool us with this during this campaign. They're sending us a message "You see, we're for individual rights and stuff". But they won't fool me. thyey won't fool me or the thousands of euroskeptics voting in a week. Fight the EU! Fight it and show mercy!
These europeanists think that they'll fool us with this during this campaign. They're sending us a message "You see, we're for individual rights and stuff". But they won't fool me. thyey won't fool me or the thousands of euroskeptics voting in a week. Fight the EU! Fight it and show mercy!
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
"you're forgotten, so long as you're not a convict/gay, then all bets are off".
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
The ruling was about "private and irrelevant information", not about reviews and a politician's prior behaviour as a politician.
So, yeah...
