I was just about to post about that Peston article.
It's a disgrace and the thin end of a very big wedge. So, someone doesn't like what a journalist has written is able to get Google to remove it, but Google can't/won't tell the journalist why it was removed.
It's pointless anyway. All you have to do is use another search engine, or use any Google search which isn't based in Europe such as...er... Google.com in the US. Plus, as you say, any attempt to remove an article is going to create even more news stories.
The ECJ is the highest court with regard to EU law, I'm not aware of what EU law they are referring to when making this ruling. I don't have any reservations about it, I think it is a stupid ruling which seems to be motivated by having a go at Google who are not responsible for the content within a link their search engine retrieves.
I was just about to post about that Peston article.
It's a disgrace and the thin end of a very big wedge. So, someone doesn't like what a journalist has written is able to get Google to remove it, but Google can't/won't tell the journalist why it was removed.
It's pointless anyway. All you have to do is use another search engine, or use any Google search which isn't based in Europe such as...er... Google.com in the US. Plus, as you say, any attempt to remove an article is going to create even more news stories.
The ECJ is the highest court with regard to EU law, I'm not aware of what EU law they are referring to when making this ruling. I don't have any reservations about it, I think it is a stupid ruling which seems to be motivated by having a go at Google who are not responsible for the content within a link their search engine retrieves.
if google removed a page from my site i would create another page explaining it had been removed with extensive tabloid esque quotes. (which is basically what the bbc has done,) as far as i am aware this law only applies to older information....
...that the page had been de-indexed is not old it is relevant discussion.
Would this law force Tripadvisor to remove malicious comments?
I think all these ideas could be tidied up into one law including revenge porn and the like.
This ruling is a nonsense as the related information is factual and isn't content which Google are responsible for and it shouldn't be linked to what you are proposing which is wholly different and unrelated.
No. While it's exclusive to me in the sense that I'm the only person in the world that my name, address and DOB applies to I don't "own" that collective information I couldn't stop you telling people my name and my address as well as when I was born.
I don't agree they're the same.
You could tell a mutual friend I suppose.
You couldn't tell the entire world - it would cross the boundary of domestic use - wouldn't you say?
You couldn't tell the entire world - it would cross the boundary of domestic use - wouldn't you say?
You're right I wouldn't go telling people but there's nothing to stop you from doing it if you want. My name and address is only "mine" in that there is only one person it applies to but I don't own that information and if you wanted to go telling people it then I couldn't and shouldn't be able to stop you from doing that.
You're right I wouldn't go telling people but there's nothing to stop you from doing it if you want. My name and address is only "mine" in that there is only one person it applies to but I don't own that information and if you wanted to go telling people it then I couldn't and shouldn't be able to stop you from doing that.
you would not have a problem if i posted your name, address, email address, DOB, phone number and picture in this forum right here right now?
you would not have a problem if i posted your name, address, email address, DOB, phone number and picture in this forum right here right now?
I would have a problem with it I'd be worried people might use it for identity fraud and also I'm sure that the forum staff would have a problem with that sort of thing but it still doesn't mean that we should legislate against it.
I was just about to post about that Peston article.
It's a disgrace and the thin end of a very big wedge. So, someone doesn't like what a journalist has written is able to get Google to remove it, but Google can't/won't tell the journalist why it was removed.
It's pointless anyway. All you have to do is use another search engine, or use any Google search which isn't based in Europe such as...er... Google.com in the US. Plus, as you say, any attempt to remove an article is going to create even more news stories.
Can I point out.. google isnt removing the articles themselves..its the search engine links its removing..(I'm sure you know this, some seem to think the actual article is removed).
Anyway a google.co.uk search of 'merrils mess' still has links to the original article..(I am in the uk), see my other post in a new thread
Confused.
Comments
The BBC gets an email telling them that a blog entry from 2007 by robert peston is being removed from their index.
peston writes about it here
the blog was about Stan O’Neal one of the architects of the recession.
now when you google Stan O’Neal all you get are articles about how Stan O’Neal has tried to remove articles about how he caused the recession.
presumably he will want rid of them. but they are contemporary....
It's a disgrace and the thin end of a very big wedge. So, someone doesn't like what a journalist has written is able to get Google to remove it, but Google can't/won't tell the journalist why it was removed.
It's pointless anyway. All you have to do is use another search engine, or use any Google search which isn't based in Europe such as...er... Google.com in the US. Plus, as you say, any attempt to remove an article is going to create even more news stories.
if google removed a page from my site i would create another page explaining it had been removed with extensive tabloid esque quotes. (which is basically what the bbc has done,) as far as i am aware this law only applies to older information....
...that the page had been de-indexed is not old it is relevant discussion.
I think all these ideas could be tidied up into one law including revenge porn and the like.
i don't think mixing up worthwhile projects like the revenge porn law with this arse gravy is a good idea.
The phrases "tidying up" and "new laws" never sit well together. There are bound to be some ludicrous loopholes and unintended consequences.
This ruling is a nonsense as the related information is factual and isn't content which Google are responsible for and it shouldn't be linked to what you are proposing which is wholly different and unrelated.
I don't agree they're the same.
You could tell a mutual friend I suppose.
You couldn't tell the entire world - it would cross the boundary of domestic use - wouldn't you say?
You're right I wouldn't go telling people but there's nothing to stop you from doing it if you want. My name and address is only "mine" in that there is only one person it applies to but I don't own that information and if you wanted to go telling people it then I couldn't and shouldn't be able to stop you from doing that.
you would not have a problem if i posted your name, address, email address, DOB, phone number and picture in this forum right here right now?
I would have a problem with it I'd be worried people might use it for identity fraud and also I'm sure that the forum staff would have a problem with that sort of thing but it still doesn't mean that we should legislate against it.
Can I point out.. google isnt removing the articles themselves..its the search engine links its removing..(I'm sure you know this, some seem to think the actual article is removed).
Anyway a google.co.uk search of 'merrils mess' still has links to the original article..(I am in the uk), see my other post in a new thread
Confused.
May 2015 and he's history.
I'd probably agree with you if I knew who he was....:)
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google
He might find it more difficult to shut down every reference to Charles Lynton.