Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:05PM   Printer-friendly
from the when-you-call-my-name dept.

Under the recent controversial "right to be forgotten" EU ruling, the search engines (well, mostly Google) are required to remove the links that point to old, inaccurate or irrelevant information from the search results if the person involved requests it. This is only applied when the search terms include the person's name — the links can still be found by using different search terms. In case of Google, delisting has been limited to the European sub-domains, but the EU wants Google to expand it to it's core .com domain, as reported by the BBC:

At present, visitors are diverted to localised editions of the US company's search tool - such as Google.co.uk and Google.fr - when they initially try to visit the Google.com site.

However, a link is provided at the bottom right-hand corner of the screen offering an option to switch to the international .com version. This link does not appear if the users attempted to go to a regional version in the first place.

Even so, it means it is possible for people in Europe to easily opt out of the censored lists.

The data watchdogs said[pdf] this "cannot be considered a sufficient means to guarantee the rights" of citizens living in the union's 28 member countries.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:27PM

    by GWRedDragon (3504) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:27PM (#120402)

    It's not enough to limit the free speech of your own citizens, you have to go after people in other countries?

    Oh, right, that's how it goes these days. Everybody's doing it, man!

    --
    [Insert witty message here]
    • (Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:03PM

      by romlok (1241) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:03PM (#120421)

      This is not about free speech. This is about ownership and control of personal data.

      The EU has laws giving individuals certain rights over their own personal information, and how that information is used by other parties.
      If you want to process personal data in the EU, then you have to ensure that such data is kept up-to-date and accurate, and deleted when no longer relevant.

      Google has been determined to be processing personal data about EU citizens (ie. gathering, aggregating, and displaying search results about individuals). Hence they, and all other search engines, have a legal responsibility to ensure that such data is kept up-to-date and accurate, and deleted when no longer relevant.
      That is; delete the data. Not just hide it from a subset of your users. Delete it.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:21PM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:21PM (#120425) Journal

        This is not about free speech. This is about ownership and control of personal data.

        No, its about ownership and control over historical data, and public knowledge. None of which belongs to the person making the claim.

        The rewriting of history has already begun, and its bad enough the EU lets it own scoundrels run from their
        historical acts and the news accounts of them, but there is no way you are going to get away with that globally.

        EU has been harping on the US for trying to enforce its laws globally, and the shoe is on the other foot now. But its not going to fly:

        EU Right to be Forgotten, meet US Freedom of the Press.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:41PM

          by romlok (1241) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:41PM (#120431)

          No, its about ownership and control over historical data, and public knowledge.
          The rewriting of history has already begun

          No, it's about how the data is processed and presented.

          If Google show you different search results for "terrorism" today, than they did 10 years ago, is that "rewriting history"? Or is it "providing more relevant search results for the current day"?

          • (Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:03AM

            by GWRedDragon (3504) on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:03AM (#120438)

            You are talking about what is presented when the user makes a general query. Consider instead a query like, "OJ Simpson trial" returning no news stories about the incident, because someone had decided that it was no longer "relevant". In this type of case, the blocking explicitly countermands what the user is searching for. This is different from merely reordering results when it is not clear what the exact subject of the search was.

            --
            [Insert witty message here]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:07AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:07AM (#120441)

            If the government changes what we can and can't see that's effectively rewriting history.

        • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday November 27 2014, @08:43AM

          by mojo chan (266) on Thursday November 27 2014, @08:43AM (#120544)

          No, it's about freedom. In the US you only have negative freedom - freedom from interference and the ability to do what you like. In Europe you have positive freedom as well, the freedom to enjoy life and stand a reasonable chance of prospering.

          As part of that, there have to be limits on what data commercial companies are allowed to keep and to provide about you. I believe that is the case even in the US. For example, credit reference agencies are not allowed to report bankruptcies beyond a certain age, because they are considered historical and no longer relevant and reporting them would impact that person's freedom to build a life for themselves. Same with certain types of criminal convictions, which are considered spent after a period of time.

          There has to be a balance between positive and negative freedom. The press is allowed to report things and keep archives, anyone can write blog posts etc, but companies offering to research a person for commercial purposes (credit agencies, background check agencies, Google etc.) have some limits placed on them. The alternative is that one mistake in your life can ruin it forever and take away your positive freedom, like happens to people in the US. No thanks, we enjoy our freedom and the US can't take it away just because it wants to drag us down to its level.

          --
          const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:21PM

        by GWRedDragon (3504) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:21PM (#120426)

        Granting "ownership" of facts relating to an individual is incompatible with the concept of free speech. The particular problem with this type of policy is that there is nobody you can magically trust to draw the line between useless facts and ones the people need to know. As someone who does not live in the EU, I do not want the EU making this call for me. I do not want Google or my own government doing it either, but luckily Google is not the only source of information out there (while a law affects all parties).

        --
        [Insert witty message here]
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:34PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:34PM (#120430)

          > Granting "ownership" of facts relating to an individual is incompatible with the concept of free speech.

          Incorrect. Nobody's preventing you from expressing an opinion on said individual. It's not about censorship, it's about the protection of the individuals against the improper use of their data.

          Before someone extrapolates too far, a conviction is a public document, which remains outside of the control of the individual. The point of the law is not to allow criminals to hide, but to prevent everyone from finding out everything they want on their target using just some basic Google-fu and Facebook-fu...

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:02AM

            by frojack (1554) on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:02AM (#120436) Journal

            Before someone extrapolates too far, a conviction is a public document, which remains outside of the control of the individual.

            There are already instances of people demanding and winning the right to suppress news reports of convictions [independent.co.uk] in EU courts.

            Nothing "remains outside the control of the individual" when any mention of an event can get any person hauled before the court. Who can afford that risk just by publishing a historical account of a murder or a news event?

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:05AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:05AM (#120439)

            "It's not about censorship, it's about the protection of the individuals against the improper use of their data."

            It is about censorship. Protecting someone from your arbitrary definition of improper use of their data is effectively limiting someone else from expressing that data the way they were able to before. That's censorship and that is a violation of free speech.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:27AM

              by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:27AM (#120455)

              For historical reasons, free speech has more boundaries in Europe than in the US.

              Google profits from presenting to a US customer the results of a private data search on a European customer. You call it free speech because it's constitutionally convenient. But it's a PRODUCT. It allows Google (and other tech firms) to make money. Made of personal data, which the US should learn to protect, rather than complain that the EU does.

              The US protected speech was established to allow free commentary and dissent, to keep society free from arbitrary censorship. Stop using this as an excuse to have no limit in how you exploit everyone's private stuff for profit.

              • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:41AM

                by frojack (1554) on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:41AM (#120461) Journal

                How can free commentary and dissent exist when participation in the commentary brings you afoul of the EU law?

                How can there be ANY commentary at all when the irrational fear of a profit somewhere along the line outweighs the public right to know?

                How could you possibly comment or dissent about an event or a person unless you happened to be standing right next to them when they did whatever they did that they now wish to make unmentionable? Was there a profit in the news report? Did the newspaper or tv report make a profit? Did the author of a book make a profit?

                Nothing in the EU law mentions profit. Stop substituting your own biases for what is actually in the law.

                This is NOT about "private information". Its not about google publishing your private profile or your email, or the list of web pages you read, because Google doesn't do that.

                Its about google linking to a public article about you, and what you did with the body.

                Stop trying to make it into something its not.
                No matter how much lipstick you slather on, this law is still a pig.
                Its wholesale historical revisionism.

                --
                No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:59AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:59AM (#120466)

                "You call it free speech because it's constitutionally convenient. But it's a PRODUCT."

                The two are not mutually exclusive.

                • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:05AM

                  by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:05AM (#120470)

                  Calling the computer-generated formatted result of an automatic database search "Speech" is obviously a lawyer-driven Constitutional shelter.
                  Problem: Since the results of a Google search can be at complete odds with Google's Corporate Policy and Ethics, WHOSE Protected Speech is it?

                  Corporations are -kinda- people, now computers are too?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:03PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:03PM (#120595)

                    Google is free to voluntarily change the results but for the government to interfere with those results does restrict speech.

                    "Calling the computer-generated formatted result of an automatic database search "Speech" is obviously a lawyer-driven Constitutional shelter."

                    And this is obviously an intellectually dishonest statement made by a stupid shill that doesn't have a valid argument.

                    Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them lawyer driven. If you have a valid argument to make then make it. So far you have only resorted to logical fallacies and bogus accusations.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 27 2014, @07:07AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 27 2014, @07:07AM (#120531) Journal

                For historical reasons, free speech has more boundaries in Europe than in the US.

                The primary two reasons are, first, a much longer history of tyranny and authoritarian governments and second, more extensive social class stratification.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:07PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:07PM (#120596)

                "For historical reasons, free speech has more boundaries in Europe than in the US."

                At least you seem to tacitly acknowledge that this is about free speech and changing history.

        • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:52AM

          by cafebabe (894) on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:52AM (#120463) Journal

          Granting "ownership" of facts relating to an individual is incompatible with the concept of free speech.

          If you believe that then please could we have the details of your doctor and lawyer and a signed letter stating that you consent to the doctor and lawyer publicly disclosing all information about you.

          --
          1702845791×2
          • (Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:11AM

            by GWRedDragon (3504) on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:11AM (#120505)

            You are confused; I do not own those facts. Rather, there is an agreement in place that the doctor/lawyer will not disclose them to others. What is enforceable there is the agreement, not the disposition of the facts.

            --
            [Insert witty message here]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @08:52AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28 2014, @08:52AM (#120794)

              there is an agreement in place that the doctor/lawyer will not disclose them to others. What is enforceable there is the agreement, not the disposition of the facts.

              And likewise, there is an agreement in place in the EU, by virtue of law, that if a business wants to operate in the EU, and process personal data about EU citizens, that business must obey the data protection legislation - including this recent court decision.

    • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:41AM

      by Whoever (4524) on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:41AM (#120487) Journal

      Google doesn't need to limit access to people outside Europe -- instead apply geolocation to the block list. If the IP address from which the request comes is in the EU, drop the "forgotten" links.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:34PM (#120403)

    The EU has to put up with the US constantly meddling in its internal affairs and giving good advice on economic policy and whatnot, nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine for a change.

    • (Score: 1) by Doctor on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:45PM

      by Doctor (3677) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:45PM (#120406)

      It is not the "US" -- it is Google, a private company. Thank you for trying to start a fight between the EU and the US.

      --
      "Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Doctor
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:01PM (#120418)

        It is actually. US companies (Google included) are using their government to try and push forth their own socioeconomical agenda in the EU.

        • (Score: 2) by romlok on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:12PM

          by romlok (1241) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:12PM (#120424)

          I think US companies like Google have a hard enough time pushing forth their own socio-economic agenda onto the US government, let alone employing them as proxies.

          Rather, I think US companies and the US government are both trying to push their socio-economic agendas onto the EU, and the rest of the world, but they're not always pulling in the same direction.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:11AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:11AM (#120442)

          No, this is more a case where EU entities are trying to use their government to push their agenda on the U.S. (ie: on a U.S. company).

          and this can't end very well. Even if Google were to take down such information someone in the U.S. will specifically start a search engine with the intent of exposing the type of information being blocked by Google. Lets see the EU try anything against them.

      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:03AM

        by cafebabe (894) on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:03AM (#120469) Journal

        Google is a private company which just happens to provide commercial services to the US Government, provide data with and without warrant to the US Government, and provide foreign policy ambassadors for the US Government.

        --
        1702845791×2
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Doctor on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:49PM

    by Doctor (3677) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @10:49PM (#120408)

    I dunno - if I was OJ Simpson I think I would support this. I mean, he was found not guilty, right? So Google should be forced to forget all about it!

    Somehow, I don't see this working very well.

    --
    "Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Doctor
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:38AM (#120460)

      I dunno - if I was OJ Simpson I think I would support this. I mean, he was found not guilty, right? So Google should be forced to forget all about it!

      Canard.

      The EU rules have a very broad public interest exception. His trial is clearly in the public interest.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:01AM

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:01AM (#120491)

        An exception that scoundrels are already attempting to paper over, and it's likely to work. Because when you get right down to it search engines are in the business of making money - do you really expect them to fight every invalid takedown request filed? Much more profitable to just forget what they're told to and get on with delivering ads.

      • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday November 27 2014, @09:53AM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday November 27 2014, @09:53AM (#120551) Homepage

        His trial is clearly in the public interest.

        Every trial is in the public interest. That's why they have trials.

        It's not the same thing as "things the public are interested in."

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:07PM

      by mojo chan (266) on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:07PM (#120577)

      People like Simpson can't use data protection laws to have information about them removed, for multiple reasons. The main issue is that they are a well known public figure. The EU has been quite clear about this kind of thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:01PM (#120419)

    Speaking of stuff being forgotten online, there's a great SoylentNews submission [soylentnews.org] that I've seen sitting in the queue now for over a week. I've eagerly been waiting to see it on the front page, but it still remains forgotten in the queue. It's far more interesting than a lot of the other ones that have been posted. In fact, it's one of the few submissions that actually relates to technology, rather than all of the political submissions we've been subjected to here lately. Can one of the editors get that submission onto the front page, where it belongs?

    • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:32PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:32PM (#120429) Homepage

      +3, subtle.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:49PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Wednesday November 26 2014, @11:49PM (#120432) Journal

      Interesting submission. Perhaps the editorial team thinks there has been enough systemd related submission for now?

      Questions that might be interesting is, who are these people that get to decide on systemd implementation? and how does one mitigate the systemd flaw?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:54AM (#120475)

        I'm more interested in finding out who the systemD troll is. Is it only one person, or several? Are they really trolling, or that anti-socially focussed on a single topic, you know, the kind of person who hope and pray doesn't show up at the party, the one who goes on and on and on about some topic that you end up fantasizing about a 16-tonne weight landing on them?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @02:37AM (#120484)

          I don't think there are any systemd trolls, really.

          Although I no longer use Debian, I'm still subscribed to some Debian mailing lists. I've seen many people complain there about how systemd screwed up their systems.

          Whenever systemd comes up here or at Slashdot or at HN or reddit or basically anywhere else, there are always many people there complaining about how systemd screwed up their systems, too.

          There's a universal hatred for systemd, because it has caused lots of people lots of problems. So I don't think there's a conspiracy against it. I think it's just bad software that has harmed a lot of people.

          Even if just 0.05% of Debian users had a bad experience with systemd (although I'm sure the actual number is much higher), that's still many thousands of people. Even if just a fraction of them complain about systemd, we're still talking hundreds of people.

          That's not a conspiracy against systemd. Rather, it's just systemd violating the systems of a huge number of people, and them expressing their extreme displeasure at this.

          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:06AM

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:06AM (#120493)

            You must have been fortunate enough to overlook the rash of anti-systemd spam that's been hitting the boards. I've got nothing against folks ranting about their pet peeve of choice, so long as it's at least tangentially on topic. But when you get someone spamming every space, GMO, etc. article with their crap it just wastes everyone's attention.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:31AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @04:31AM (#120495)

              I've seen them. All the ones I've seen have been connected to the submission topic in some way, so I think they're relevant.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 27 2014, @06:58AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 27 2014, @06:58AM (#120529) Journal

                All the ones I've seen have been connected to the submission topic in some way

                That just means they aren't completely off-topic trolls. Having said that, the furor among Debian users concerning systemd is the biggest open source story of the year, I think.

              • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:29PM

                by Immerman (3985) on Thursday November 27 2014, @05:29PM (#120648)

                You are either less observant or far more generous than I. "This satellite should run sytemd so that it explodes on impact"* or "Good thing this GMO corn isn't running systemd or..."* are not remotely on-topic, they're transparent attempts to hijack the topic to something completely unrelated. To say nothing of the posts that just rant against systemd without any attempt to even humorously link it with the topic on hand.

                *comments made up on the spot to illustrate the "flavor" of many that I have seen.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday November 27 2014, @09:13AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 27 2014, @09:13AM (#120546) Journal

      I am speaking only for myself - my views are not necessarily shared by other editors, nor do they reflect any official policy.

      Systemd, and Debian, have been criticised widely over the last few weeks, in numerous stories. The comments - IMHO - are often reduced to flaming sessions which repeat the same arguments over and over, very often submitted by ACs. Systemd discussions seem to include criticism of Debian - why, I don't know, because it is not the only major distro to have adopted systemd. This suggests to me that the stories are aimed more at the downfall of Debian or some of developers there, rather than a genuine attempt at discussing the technical merits or otherwise of a piece of software.

      I went out of my way to process a story offered by an AC (here [soylentnews.org]) which initially looked as if there was a sensible discussion to be had. The result is now well known. It was simply an attempt at trolling and for one individual to try to influence the acceptance of his poorly written program by the Debian packagers. As I said in my final posts to that thread - ACs have had a chance with me and they have blown it. The amount of processing required for a story submitted by an AC is significantly more than for a story from someone trusted, known or at least brave enough to put his name to the submission. I encourage new submitters to dig out a story and to put it forward but, if you dare not put your name to it, perhaps you ought to select a less contentious topic.

      I fully support the ability for ACs to post comments. I can see several reasons which more than adequately justify why this is a good thing. However, my time is limited and the editing task poses enough problems as it is without having to ascertain whether the story is another subtle attempt at trolling (same subject, similar arguments, another AC). I will not be rushing to publish any submission by an AC unless it a) contains a good explanation to the editors as to why the anonymity is necessary and b) is original enough to be of interest rather then repeating topics that have already been discussed ad nauseum. This is not an anti-Debian or anti-systemd site, although criticism of either can be newsworthy if original. I can always remove the justification before publication but, without it, it will stay in the queue until I have more time and no alternative material.

      Other editors may well think differently. and they may decide to publish the story. However, as an editor, I am here to serve the community. If you have a sensible suggestion to make or an intelligent counter-argument then I am happy to read what you have to say. I browse at level 1 nowadays as the background noise level has increased significantly of late - flames and insults tend to pass me by.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @12:44PM (#120574)

        The result of that submission you posted was some good discussion. I hope people involved with Debian, and specifically that incident, read the comments and learned something from the great suggestions that came out of it. Yes, there were some thin-skinned "social justice warrior"-types who got deeply offended, but that's not your fault, nor is it the fault of the submitter.

        systemd is huge news within the open source community. Given the ties of the readers here to Linux, Debian, and open source, I think it would do a disservice to the entire community not to post such submissions. They're the most relevant and useful that there are.

        • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:18PM

          by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 27 2014, @01:18PM (#120585) Journal
          It would do a disservice to the entire community not to post some such submissions.
          --
          В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @11:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 27 2014, @11:48AM (#120568)

    ... The right to be remembered on Google's internal blacklist for all time?

    I mean, come on, how do you expect Google to implement this thing? It's going to have to remember that whenever it comes across you on the internet, it's to remember that you're to be ignored.

    In another couple decades, could see these people becoming oddly invisible to things like ATM's, self-driving cars etc... LOL!