Google may indicate when search has been censored over 'right to be forgotten'

[techbeck]

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.com/2014/6/9/5793062/google-may-indicate-when-search-censored-right-to-be-forgotten

[Lord Method Man]

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

[+Majesticmerc MVC]

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.

[n_K]

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.

[ShadowMajestic]

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.

 

[LimeMaster]

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.

[jakem1]

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

[Lord Method Man]

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.

[LimeMaster]

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!

[Lord Method Man]

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.

[n_K]

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/news/technology-27423527

[Lord Method Man]

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/news/technology-27423527

 

Ah, ok.

[LimeMaster]

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:

[Lord Method Man]

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.

[LimeMaster]

I got your message I was agreeing with you.

Oops:

[theyarecomingforyou]

The problem with digital information is that it doesn't expire like traditional media / real life, meaning that an incident from decades prior can prejudice an individual for the rest of their life. People have the right to protect their privacy in the digital era. Over 80% of people aged 16-24 support the Right To Be Forgotten and the figure is not much less for other age groups. Companies like Google shouldn't be able to profit from the private information of individuals in the name of 'free speech'. In law criminal sentences and debts become spent?meaning they no longer count against an individual?after a certain period of time and that should be reflected on the internet. It's disingenuous to claim this is censorship, as censorship relates to public information and how it is controlled by governments and/or other organisations with influence over others - this relates to private information and individuals seeking to protect their privacy.

 

The EU has long been a proponent of consumer rights and personal protections, with the Right To Be Forgotten being an obvious extension of that. Whether this particular ruling has struck the right balance certain needs to be debated but there is no doubt that some degree of legislation is needed in this area.

 

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.

Paedophiles have rights too. If they are a risk to the public then they should be monitored, restricted and/or jailed; if not then they should be allowed to go about their lives. We've seen too many incidents where vigilantes take matters into their own hands and attack or kill people suspected of child abuse. That said, I don't think there's an implication that the Right To Be Forgotten will be abused to allow paedophiles free rein to prey on children.