K
Kaat72
Guest
'A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union found that certain users can ask search engines to remove results for queries that include their name where those results are
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
breadnatty08
pain rustique
Dumb question, but does this apply only to those currently living in the EU, or anyone?
Edit: Yep, dumb question.
You have to select your country you reside in and it appears to only be those in the EU.
Edit: Yep, dumb question.
You have to select your country you reside in and it appears to only be those in the EU.
electricpete
Android Expert
There's are apparently a lot of people who's name appears in a negative context within a news story that would line to be forgotten. Lots of grey areas though. Does a mass murderer Charles Manson have a right to be forgotten? How about one time murderer or child molester? Or Bernie Madoff?
jajrussel
Member
I read not to long ago that that people fear being forgotten more than death.
Personally, I believe that people fear most what they will be remembered for. If it serves justice then perhaps they should not be forgotten. Google doesn't differentiate between what is just and what is not just, and I don't think they should have the power to do so.
Google is not a municipality, nor is it any other kind of government. No powers should be vested them. So, if someone tells Google forget me, and they say no; it should be considered an invasion of privacy without regard to the character of who is doing the asking.
Charles Manson is a part of history. The man down the street who robbed a liquor store is not. Should we remember Elvis for his songs, or the way he died? Elvis is a part of history we can decide without harming him. Should the man down the street be remembered five, ten, or twenty years from now if justice has already been served? If the judicial system says yes then justice has not been served, and he is still paying for his crime.
I walked into a ladies room by mistake onetime. If there was a video should people have the right to post it? I got angry once and my anger was recorded. Should the person who recorded it have the right to post it?
I don't mind being caught being a fool it actually helps me to learn, but five years from now should someone from human resources be able to Google the video and not even consider me for a job?
Google is not God. In another hundred years, who knows?
Personally, I believe that people fear most what they will be remembered for. If it serves justice then perhaps they should not be forgotten. Google doesn't differentiate between what is just and what is not just, and I don't think they should have the power to do so.
Google is not a municipality, nor is it any other kind of government. No powers should be vested them. So, if someone tells Google forget me, and they say no; it should be considered an invasion of privacy without regard to the character of who is doing the asking.
Charles Manson is a part of history. The man down the street who robbed a liquor store is not. Should we remember Elvis for his songs, or the way he died? Elvis is a part of history we can decide without harming him. Should the man down the street be remembered five, ten, or twenty years from now if justice has already been served? If the judicial system says yes then justice has not been served, and he is still paying for his crime.
I walked into a ladies room by mistake onetime. If there was a video should people have the right to post it? I got angry once and my anger was recorded. Should the person who recorded it have the right to post it?
I don't mind being caught being a fool it actually helps me to learn, but five years from now should someone from human resources be able to Google the video and not even consider me for a job?
Google is not God. In another hundred years, who knows?
jajrussel
Member
I am not suggesting that Google should not show discretion. As human beings, and as a company they should exercise discretion in the content that they provide. The same goes for any company like them or any company that provides internet access.
I am not sure what the take on this would be, but I can hear the Alarms sounding now that such discretion should be viewed as a blow against freedom of the internet. I don't see it that way.
Some control is necessary, and individual governments on a federal level should be exercising that control. If they do not it is the same as giving those companies powers of state, and that type of power they should not have.
It is not freedom of the internet should any of those companies decide to back specific political parties then exercise their own controls to limit others.
There already seems to be such a worry that access and control will go to the highest bidder. It is probably already happening on some level.
We can not have freedom of speech if we can not speak or be heard because our access is denied limited,or controlled by the providers.
What happens to freedom of religion if one religion gains control of major access points?
So, some control is necessary, but that control absolutely shouldn't be held by the highest bidder, or an individual company.
I am not sure what the take on this would be, but I can hear the Alarms sounding now that such discretion should be viewed as a blow against freedom of the internet. I don't see it that way.
Some control is necessary, and individual governments on a federal level should be exercising that control. If they do not it is the same as giving those companies powers of state, and that type of power they should not have.
It is not freedom of the internet should any of those companies decide to back specific political parties then exercise their own controls to limit others.
There already seems to be such a worry that access and control will go to the highest bidder. It is probably already happening on some level.
We can not have freedom of speech if we can not speak or be heard because our access is denied limited,or controlled by the providers.
What happens to freedom of religion if one religion gains control of major access points?
So, some control is necessary, but that control absolutely shouldn't be held by the highest bidder, or an individual company.
sfbloodbrother
Extreme Android User
Being forgotten? I don't think so unless I'm running away from something.
jajrussel
Member
Sometimes when I am tired and, or stressed my thoughts tend to blend. I am assuming that this is what I did with my last post to this thread. After rereading it today I realized my error. I apologize if I confused anyone. It was not my intent to send the thread in another direction.
SiempreTuna
Android Expert
How about if a newspaper or TV station ran an untrue story about you? Even if they retracted, you can bet the retraction would never feature as prominently in search results as the story did - just like how a retraction is never printed / aired as prominently as the original story
As for Charles Manson and Bernie Madoff: they're not EU citizens
zuben el genub
Extreme Android User
I wouldn't mind. I never use my real name anyway - I don't want to be found by old friends, my high school, etc. When I moved away, they were gone. It's also no social organization's business about feelings, donations, you name it.
K
Kaat72
Guest
Google struggles with 'right to be forgotten'
Google has problems with the right to be in Europe. Attention*The search giant must often rely on incomplete information.
Writes that the search giant in a*letter*to the European Union after an interview with Europe.
The European Court decided in May that search engines results that are no longer relevant or harmful in some cases to remove if the person requests it.
Until the end of July, there are 91,000 requests received for a total of 328,000 of which 21,000 Dutch URLs URLs.*In 31 percent of cases, Google refuses the request.
Incorrect information
In response to questions from the European Union, let Google know that the difficulty to assess because there is not always complete information is available. Ask some good
"Appear to consist of incorrect or incomplete information. Certain requests, we must generally rely on the information we get, no security except the person themselves," says Google.
That could mean that someone who makes removal a result of a conviction as a minor has had a conviction. As adults*The result of the previous conviction could therefore still be relevant, but if the person does not tell about the recent conviction Google knows nothing about, and the result is perhaps unfairly removed.
The search giant says that the approach will change as regulators and courts establish guidelines the coming period.*"We also know that there are some debates on the schedule."
Source: www.nu.nl
Google has problems with the right to be in Europe. Attention*The search giant must often rely on incomplete information.
Writes that the search giant in a*letter*to the European Union after an interview with Europe.
The European Court decided in May that search engines results that are no longer relevant or harmful in some cases to remove if the person requests it.
Until the end of July, there are 91,000 requests received for a total of 328,000 of which 21,000 Dutch URLs URLs.*In 31 percent of cases, Google refuses the request.
Incorrect information
In response to questions from the European Union, let Google know that the difficulty to assess because there is not always complete information is available. Ask some good
"Appear to consist of incorrect or incomplete information. Certain requests, we must generally rely on the information we get, no security except the person themselves," says Google.
That could mean that someone who makes removal a result of a conviction as a minor has had a conviction. As adults*The result of the previous conviction could therefore still be relevant, but if the person does not tell about the recent conviction Google knows nothing about, and the result is perhaps unfairly removed.
The search giant says that the approach will change as regulators and courts establish guidelines the coming period.*"We also know that there are some debates on the schedule."
Source: www.nu.nl