nickie on 15/5/2014 at 19:34
So, more often than not, people fight to be heard. But not at the moment.
Quote:
Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results, the (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27423527) BBC has learned.
The three relevant parties discussed are:
Quote:
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.
None of these three seem to me to deserve having results removed. But I wonder whether there are deserving cases. Apparently (
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/15/hundreds-google-wipe-details-search-index-right-forgotten) Google has been deluged with requests to remove information.
I was listening to the radio this afternoon and a case was cited of a young man who did something horrendous(ish) whose name and what he did I really can't remember now. I think it was something to do with pissing against a wall. But the argument was that he was young and daft and that information shouldn't remain in a search engine. And I agree - unless he arrives at a position where it might be relevant (can't thing what though). I don't think that any future whatever should be affected by this.
This obviously links in with the Eich thread but to me, it comes down to whether you are a public or private person and whether you seek to benefit from your position.
Quote:
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has criticised the ruling, calling it "astonishing" while free speech advocates at The Index on Censorship said the court's ruling "should send chills down the spine of everyone in the European Union who believes in the crucial importance of free expression and freedom of information".
I think that's a little over the top. Why shouldn't Joe Bloggs who did something silly but not criminal not have the information removed? Or is it a slippery slope to damnation?
Renault on 15/5/2014 at 19:50
Interesting, I don't see how info regarding any of the three above cited examples could be considered "irrelevant." On what grounds? I don't think something just being old ("outdated?") is a good enough reason to remove it.
IRL I'm a recruiter, and we consider all information when placing a candidate, no matter how old. Granted, the older stuff has less relevance, but it still has some relevance.
Tomi on 15/5/2014 at 20:34
Quote Posted by Brethren
IRL I'm a recruiter, and we consider
all information when placing a candidate, no matter how old. Granted, the older stuff has less relevance, but it still has
some relevance.
So how does it work when you find barely any information about the candidate? Do you find it suspicious and immediately think that the candidate is trying to hide some terrible secrets, or what?
Is it a bad thing if I've made all my social networking accounts not visible for anyone who isn't a friend/follower/whatever of mine?
R Soul on 15/5/2014 at 21:31
How many from Max Mosley?
I'm also interested in the answer to Tomi's question.
Pyrian on 15/5/2014 at 22:51
Quote Posted by nickie
Why shouldn't Joe Bloggs who did something silly but not criminal not have the information removed?
Why
should he? Free speech is reason enough not to. If you want to curb free speech, then I think the burden of giving sufficient reason is very much on you. Covering up prior misdeeds is hardly a good reason; in fact it's one of the most basic reasons why the right exists in the first place.
Quote Posted by nickie
Or is it a slippery slope to damnation?
The examples given clearly demonstrate that we're not talking about a slippery slope so much as starting at the bottom.
SubJeff on 16/5/2014 at 00:15
Re: negative reviews from patients. It's fine if the patients can be identified and challenged on the facts but if posted anonymously should be allowed to be taken down as they can damage trust and standing even if not backed up by evidence and where there is no ability to reply. This is especially true in the UK where healthcare is rationed on a pure need basis and you'll get bad reviews from patients who think they should have had antibiotics for a cold and so on.
Tony_Tarantula on 16/5/2014 at 02:46
I kind of like the idea in theory....but let's be realistic here.
The politicians just want this so they can legally censor search results that paint them in a negative light.
Gryzemuis on 16/5/2014 at 17:47
Quote Posted by SubJeff
... but if posted anonymously should be allowed to be taken down ..
Note that the request are not for the information to be removed from the websites. Those requests are only directed at Google, to remove the websites from their search results.
mcd on 17/5/2014 at 06:28
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Note that the request are not for the information to be removed from the websites. Those requests are only directed at Google, to remove the websites from their search results.
This is where it falls down for me. Freedom of speech opinions aside, surely Google could argue that this would force them to provide a less, I don't know, accurate/efficient service, thereby giving them grounds to argue the case that it negatively impinges on their business.
Nicker on 17/5/2014 at 18:36
I see a future for services dedicated to seeking out and expunging negative web content for private clients.
