Google gets take-down requests after EU court ruling

Do they European courts really have nothing else to do?
 
Morons clearly don't understand that Google is only indexing third party content. They honestly seem to think that the content is put there by Google.
 
JStrike said:
This ruling is a big win for privacy
Click to expand...

The ruling should have been against content holders not Google. It is stupid. It is like asking a library to remove an index for a book but keeping the book on the shelf.
 
Would Google be able to just reset the search stats on the individual when the individual asks for a take down?

This way anything that is older than a certain period (seen as not relevant anymore) would fall into obscurity whereas if people are still searching for it, it would imply that the article or information was still relevant.

just my 2c
 
supersunbird said:
So can Anders Behring Breivik request that all links to details of him shooting 69 people dead on that island be removed from Google?
Click to expand...

But the millions of websites, blogs, tweets and forum posts that refer to the story will not be removed, and neither will their internal searches.
 
garp said:
But the millions of websites, blogs, tweets and forum posts that refer to the story will not be removed, and neither will their internal searches.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's the point of a search engine like Google. Maybe I want information on the David Beckham, but he now requested links to be removed, now I go to Wikipedia and search but it doesn't show how many games he scored how many goals in. Where do I go to then?
 
supersunbird said:
Yes, but that's the point of a search engine like Google. Maybe I want information on the David Beckham, but he now requested links to be removed, now I go to Wikipedia and search but it doesn't show how many games he scored how many goals in. Where do I go to then?
Click to expand...

But does this apply to Wikipedia? It's not primarily an "internet search service". If it does apply, then pretty much every website with internal search indexing capability would have to comply, including mybb if it was in Europe, and how do you issue takedowns to all of them?
 
garp said:
But does this apply to Wikipedia? It's not primarily an "internet search service". If it does apply, then pretty much every website with internal search indexing capability would have to comply, including mybb if it was in Europe, and how do you issue takedowns to all of them?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what he said.
 
garp said:
But does this apply to Wikipedia? It's not primarily an "internet search service". If it does apply, then pretty much every website with internal search indexing capability would have to comply, including mybb if it was in Europe, and how do you issue takedowns to all of them?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, but I mean, how do I easily find the info if it is not on Wikipedia (was just never loaded there) and the search engine gives nothing due to takedown requests. Will make finding info much harder.
 
supersunbird said:
No it doesn't, but I mean, how do I easily find the info if it is not on Wikipedia (was just never loaded there) and the search engine gives nothing due to takedown requests. Will make finding info much harder.
Click to expand...

True. And it's wide open for abuse. History could literally disappear for all intents and purposes, it all seems a bit Orwellian to me.
 
supersunbird said:
So can Anders Behring Breivik request that all links to details of him shooting 69 people dead on that island be removed from Google?
Click to expand...

Wow that's just a scary thought, so the Germans can request to have Hitler's history removed from Google search etc...... This ruling really opens up the system to abuse .It could impact search engines and our ability to access information on people in a huge way!
 
Last edited:
They've already received requests from paedophiles to remove any link to their convictions. How stupid was this ruling?
 
Just because you request to be removed does not mean you will be. Google has to exercise a discretion as to whether the data linked to is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive” taking into account the purpose for which the information was processed and the time elapsed.

if Google or another search provider (and the judgement also applies to social media platforms and others to the extent that they index content) does not agree to the request for removal then the affected individual has a right to approach their national data protection agency or courts to review or appeal this decision.

over time a framework will develop which will make this less hit-and-miss and subject to the search provider's discretion

JStrike said:
This ruling is a big win for privacy
Click to expand...

it is, in Europe where the right to privacy takes precedence over the right to freedom of expression. the judgement would probably be seen as unconstitutional in the US where the opposite precedence applies

my concern is that we follow the European approach in general, but we are not Europe - in SA where there is going to be a lot of pressure on freedom of expression in the next 5 years this kind of ruling has the potential to lay a basis for the erosion of our privacy, rather than its protection

also....
in SA there is already a right to apply to a provider of information location services for the removal of links

Electronic Communications and Transactions Act said:
Information location tools

76.
A service provider is not liable for damages incurred by a person if the service provider refers or links users to a web page containing an infringing data message or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hyperlink, where the service provider—*
(a) does not have actual knowledge that the data message or an activity relating to the data message is infringing the rights of that person;
(b) is not aware of facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity or the infringing nature of the data message is apparent;
(c) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity; and
(d) removes, or disables access to, the reference or link to the data message or activity within a reasonable time after being informed that the data message or the activity relating to such data message, infringes the rights of a person.
Click to expand...

not been used to date afaik

& google have now complied with the judgement https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X