Jump to content



Photo
google

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 +techbeck

techbeck

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,230 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 05

Posted 09 June 2014 - 16:51

Google may be planning to alert users whenever search results have been wiped away thanks to a controversial European court ruling. That decision, handed down last month, has allowed Europeans to censor search by asking Google to pull down "irrelevant" and otherwise sensitive personal results. It's referred to as "the right to be forgotten," but Google seems to think web users also have a right to know when their search experience has been altered. If implemented, The Guardian says these notifications would resemble existing alerts that Google displays if results have been hidden in response to copyright complaints. Google could also shine a light on personal takedown requests in its transparency reports.

 

More....

http://www.theverge....to-be-forgotten




#2 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 09 June 2014 - 17:21

If its sensitive personal information how did it get online to begin with? Doesn't Google only search publicly viewable web content?



#3 +Majesticmerc

Majesticmerc

    Resident Idealist

  • 6,081 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 05
  • Location: United Kingdom
  • OS: Arch Linux / Win 7
  • Phone: HTC One X

Posted 09 June 2014 - 17:41

If its sensitive personal information how did it get online to begin with? Doesn't Google only search publicly viewable web content?

 

Correct, I guess the complications come with caching the information. For example I can use a Cached version of a page when the site itself is down, meaning that Google has a copy of that content, and is therefore responsible for it's removal. The requester will also have to ask the original content creator to remove it.

 

The same rules would apply to things like the Wayback machine as well presumably.



#4 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 09 June 2014 - 17:56

If its sensitive personal information how did it get online to begin with? Doesn't Google only search publicly viewable web content?

It's things like court rulings, e.g. someone is found by a jury to be a paedophile and their ruling is put online on the court site and in news articles, then when the offender gets out of prison they suddenly don't like people being able to find that information on them via google so they submit a 'right to be forgotton' request and bob's your uncle.



#5 ShadowMajestic

ShadowMajestic

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,828 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 10
  • Location: Netherlands
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro 64bit
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:03

Yeah or just to, you know, protect people. Like everything else that gets protected.

Few years ago some ###### wrote a whole blog post about me, talking all kinds of trash. Using my real name and a few nicknames I used in some communities.

And whaddayaknow, if you looked up my name, his blog post was the 2nd result after LinkedIn.....

Yeah great, and I couldn't get Google to remove it because its not on my domain and it's not copyrighted media.

 



#6 +LimeMaster

LimeMaster

    LippyZillaD Council ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 10
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:11

As they say, "Once it's on the internet its there forever". So this whole Google search censorship is sort-of pointless unless you are able to get the website(s) with the content to remove the information as well, which is not always easy to do and sometimes may even require you to take legal action.



#7 jakem1

jakem1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:20

Individuals asking to have cached content and links about them removed isn't censorship.  It's just people exercising a basic right to privacy.



#8 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:24

It's things like court rulings, e.g. someone is found by a jury to be a paedophile and their ruling is put online on the court site and in news articles, then when the offender gets out of prison they suddenly don't like people being able to find that information on them via google so they submit a 'right to be forgotton' request and bob's your uncle.

 

Convictions like that need to remain public information. I really hope that protecting kiddie diddlers isn't the best justification you can come up with for this pointless censorship.



#9 +LimeMaster

LimeMaster

    LippyZillaD Council ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 10
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:32

Individuals asking to have cached content and links about them removed isn't censorship.  It's just people exercising a basic right to privacy.

Well, whatever you want to call it, it's still pointless as the information is still available through the websites with the content and other known lesser search engines too! It isn't really protecting anyone's privacy unless the content is entirely removed, which is clearly not the case.

 

Oh well!



#10 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:39

Well, whatever you want to call it, it's still pointless as the information is still available through the websites with the content and other known lesser search engines too! It isn't really protecting anyone's privacy unless the content is entirely removed, which is clearly not the case.

 

Oh well!

 

If people don't want the content to be seen they shouldn't have posted it, and if it was posted by someone else they need to go to them to have it taken down. Censoring search results is not the way to go about it.



#11 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,369 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:39

Convictions like that need to remain public information. I really hope that protecting kiddie diddlers isn't the best justification you can come up with for this pointless censorship.

I'm 100% against this farce of legislation, and as I said in a previous thread, that actually is the kind of removal request google was getting at first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-27423527



#12 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:44

I'm 100% against this farce of legislation, and as I said in a previous thread, that actually is the kind of removal request google was getting at first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...nology-27423527

 

Ah, ok.



#13 +LimeMaster

LimeMaster

    LippyZillaD Council ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 10
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:52

If people don't want the content to be seen they shouldn't have posted it, and if it was posted by someone else they need to go to them to have it taken down. Censoring search results is not the way to go about it.

And I agree with you, which is why I said it was pointless. :) I guess I didn't make that very clear.  :pinch:



#14 Lord Method Man

Lord Method Man

    Banned

  • 3,758 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 12

Posted 09 June 2014 - 18:59

And I agree with you, which is why I said it was pointless. :) I guess I didn't make that very clear.  :pinch:

 

I got your message I was agreeing with you.



#15 +LimeMaster

LimeMaster

    LippyZillaD Council ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 28-August 10
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 920

Posted 09 June 2014 - 19:02

I got your message I was agreeing with you.

Oops:

Spoiler