[Closed] Google rewriting history

Google opposed the law. Want someone to blame, then look at the European Court Of Justice.

1984 again I tell thee...

I agree, but there's still an issue with how Google are implementing the law, and a suspicion that they're removing links they shouldn't.

Though 10 minutes of manually googling every proper name I can find in that article I can't find one which doesn't link.

[quote=aracer said]I agree, but there's still an issue with how Google are implementing the law, and a suspicion that they're removing links they shouldn't.

When they're getting 1000 requests/day for removal then it ain't going to be prefect.

Use a proxy server located outside the EU for your searches.

I think Google are deliberately complying as literally and as liberally as possible with the court's order, in order to maximise the daftness and make them reconsider. But I bet whoever wanted that BBC page removing is regretting it. All a bit pointless when you can search google.com

aracer - Member
I agree, but there's still an issue with how Google are implementing the law, and a suspicion that they're removing links they shouldn't.
Though 10 minutes of manually googling every proper name I can find in that article I can't find one which doesn't link.

It was one of the people who commented on the story. Doesn't seem to find K Mjumbe in relation to that article. I don't think s/he need worry though, I struggle with long sentences springs to mind after trying to read the comment...

I was reading some comment saying this is unenforceable, because someone doing a search can either use a proxy, or just simply use Google.com, as they're based outside of Europe, and the court has no power to demand details be removed from their servers.

thought google were even putting a message in search results saying something was withheld due to a take down, and suggesting they go to google.com and retry the search.

someone needs to tell a judge and MPs/MEPs how the internet works.

[quote=andytherocketeer said]thought google were even putting a message in search results saying something was withheld due to a take down, and suggesting they go to google.com and retry the search.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Stan+O%E2%80%99Neal&oq=Stan+O%E2%80%99Neal

At bottom of results.

The notice only says that some results [i]may[/i] have been removed.
See http://www.google.co.uk/policies/faq/

When you search for a name, you may see a notice that says that results may have been modified in accordance with data protection law in Europe. We’re showing this notice in Europe when a user searches for most names, not just pages that have been affected by a removal.

I don't really see what the issue is. Google can provide whatever results in searches you run, they feel like. They can even provide the wrong links. It's entirely up to them. It doesn't change the content of the internet.

Other search engines are available.

I don't really see what the issue is. Google can provide whatever results in searches you run, they feel like. They can even provide the wrong links. It's entirely up to them. It doesn't change the content of the internet.

Other search engines are available.

For an awful lot of people Google IS the internet. If you can't find something online, or know someone who can, then it might as well not exist. I'd be like going in to a library with no indexing system, good luck trying to find the book you're looking for.

Use a proxy server located outside the EU for your searches.

or just search via http://google.com/ncr

ncr=NoCountryRedirect

It's true that people treat it as the internet but we should never forget it's just a search engine provided by a private company. They can turn it off completely tomorrow. They have no obligation to provide the links we want, they could link every single link to googleshares.com if they wanted.

Google opposed the European ruling, it's not what they wanted. The ruling was granted based on individuals desire to have part of their history removed from google's database.

The whole ruling is very interesting. Lots of people use google to research people. You could easily argue that it's their human right to have something removed from the search results because it's in their past and is no longer relevant.

But it's a Robert peston article so deletion should be mandatory.

I think Google are deliberately complying as literally and as liberally as possible with the court's order, in order to maximise the daftness and make them reconsider.

This. That's why they did it to the BBC I think..

You could easily argue that it's their human right to have something removed from the search results because it's in their past and is no longer relevant.

Hmm.. who's to deicde what's relevant about the past? That really is a slippery slope!

The original issue was that someone was being dragged over the coals for something they'd done a long time ago that was mentioned on the internet *by someone else*, and they felt it was a private matter. However, as I understand it this guy actually posted the comment himself, and then decided he wanted it removed, yes? If so, tough shit. You say it, you said it.

who's to decide what's relevant about the past? That really is a slippery slope!

I think thats the very minefield that Google are trapped with - in essence they would have to take it down for anyone who asked them to unless there was a true public interest in retaining it, Now I would have thought that the only thing likely to pass that test would be record of a criminal conviction, bit even then there are rules, such as the rehabilitation of offenders act, that dictate how long a previous conviction is seen as relevant for (see the recent court case over not having to reveal spent minor convictions on CRB checks)

You could easily argue that it's their human right to have something removed from the search results because it's in their past and is no longer relevant.

I think that was the argument, but from what I've seen the things that are being requested to be removed are entirely relevant. You could imagine Max Mosley types wanting to get newspaper articles about their sex lives removed as it's not relevant to their jobs, but politicians being found guilty of fraud while in office? That's entirely relevant and shouldn't be removed.

If Google wanted to do this off their own back, maybe as a money spinner then fair enough, but it would damage their reputation and people would switch rapidly to other search engines.

Google haven't really had a lot of choice in the matter, and it's easy enough to bypass, they gave out the ncr URL referred to above when Jeremy Vine discussed it yesterday.