A ruling forcing Google to remove search results has been described as "astonishing" by Wikipedia fo

[dfergie]

The European Courts of Justice ruled on Tuesday that an individual could demand that "irrelevant or outdated" information be deleted from results.
Mr Wales said it was "one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I've ever seen".
Google has said it is looking into the implications of the decision.

bbc.com

 

[KE4EST]

Interesting.

 

[grohgreg]

I don't see a problem. Or am I missing how you (or Mr Wales) correlate(s) "irrelevant or outdated" with "censorship"?

//greg//

 

[TheKrell]

Well, the astonishing part IMHO is that the irrelevant or outdated information is not itself being taken down, but only search results including that irrelevant or outdated information. I call that censorship. The facts don't change: only the reporting of it.

 

[navychop]

Well, the astonishing part IMHO is that the irrelevant or outdated information is not itself being taken down, but only search results including that irrelevant or outdated information. I call that censorship. The facts don't change: only the reporting of it.

Bingo!


Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[harshness]

Say, for example that Charlie Sheen wants his Internet search results "expunged" because it is hurting his career. Selectively editing results of searches would effectively accomplish that goal. I don't think it is so much censorship but denying us access to the facts when that's what someone who is searching is obviously after.

If someone is publishing private information, they need to go after them, not the search index.

 

[FTA4PA]

Who decides what's "irrelevent or outdated"? It's just an individual asking at this point but does the government eventually get into the business of deciding for us "for our own good"? Seems like this could be twisted for any number of reasons to keep things from the public! One could argue that search references pertaining to any information (scientific, medical, technological) older than the present standard is "irrelevent and outdated" and should be removed. Where does it end?

 

[raoul5788]

I agree, but what if someone had posted somewhere that FTA4PA was a child molester and that showed up in a Google search. Of course you would want that expunged.

 

[FTA4PA]

I agree, but what if someone had posted somewhere that FTA4PA was a child molester and that showed up in a Google search. Of course you would want that expunged.

Wow! Couldn't you have used something besides that to make your point! Seriously though, I think we can agree there's a big difference between an individual correcting erroneous info about themselves (which they should be allowed to do) vs what it might lead to if it isn't monitored carefully.

 

[raoul5788]

Wow! Couldn't you have used something besides that to make your point! Seriously though, I think we can agree there's a big difference between an individual correcting erroneous info about themselves (which they should be allowed to do) vs what it might lead to if it isn't monitored carefully.

I don't quite follow your logic. What does that have to do censorship?

 

[DJdish]

I´m not clear if that "right to be forgotten" includes say offenders, molesters who actually committed a crime.
In the case of the Spanish man it says "The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his privacy".
Maybe that´s not a huge deal, but I´m thinking say you live in Europe and you want to do a background check on a potential employee, will this "right to be forgotten" eliminate his dirt from the search results you get on Google, and therefore you could end up making a potential hiring decision based on incomplete info ? Interesting..