SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC intends to list BBC links which were taken off Google because of the EU decision on the "right to be forgotten".
Since a European Court of Justice ruling last year, individuals have the right to request that search engines remove certain web pages from their search results. Those pages usually contain personal information about individuals.
Following the ruling, Google removed a large number of links from its search results, including some to BBC web pages, and continues to delist pages from BBC Online.
The BBC has decided to make clear to licence fee payers which pages have been removed from Google's search results by publishing this list of links.
Further information can be found on this BBC story
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
BBC to list their links removed from Google
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 20 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
We just joined the civil hair patrol!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Whoever on Sunday June 28 2015, @08:15PM
Which one of these regretted their remarks: [bbc.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @12:26AM
Sometimes I pet them as if they're small furry animals.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 28 2015, @09:57PM
How many pages has been de-listed? and is there any source of those urls for all sites de-listed from search engines?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 29 2015, @03:30AM
Probably the only place that knows this is the news organization that had the information in the first place.
It seems like all of those agencies should follow the BBC example and publish a list of these URLs themselves, since the EU mandate apparently does not extend to news organizations. At least history won't be totally lost, when this right to be forgotten nonsense is finally rolled back.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @12:06PM
And then one could use ones own search bot on those index pages and ooppps! ;-)
I think it will be called dirtsearch! :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:28PM
> Probably the only place that knows this is the news organization that had the information in the first place.
That's only if they make the effort to check and if they make it using the right keywords. Not all "forgotten" pages are completely forgotten, some are just dis-associated from specific keywords in the index.
(Score: 2) by romlok on Monday June 29 2015, @04:10PM
No pages have been "de-listed" because of this. They have only been de-indexed from certain search terms. Other search terms on the same search engine could still return those self same articles.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 29 2015, @11:43PM
Guess people has to improve their search skills. The question is how.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @09:59PM
The point of "right to be forgotten" is not really about absolute forgetting, it is more about raising the level of effort to find socially embarrassing information about normal non-criminals. Back before google, you had to go to the library and dig through micro-fiche newspaper archives. Having to go to the BBC's website to search through the modern equivalent of micro-fiche archives is enough of an extra effort to discourage the idly curious and that still accomplishes the original goal.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:07PM
Streisand.
Want some dirt? Look at the unlistings.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:09PM
I tend to agree with the AC. The problem isn't getting some dirt on random poeple, it's someone you know or want to work for googling your name.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday June 29 2015, @04:00AM
And why would that be a problem?
Like the GP said, Streisand. Its going to come out sooner or later, and if your future boss finds out about some juvenile indiscretion, and that is going to make a difference, do you really want to work there?
When, not If, but WHEN said boss finds out you went to a lot of trouble to hide something, ("irrelevant" and outdated data), you are immediately MORE suspect than had you just let it go, or admitted it in your interview when they asked "is there anything else we should know"?
Its not gone. If the BBC decided to have a search engine of its own site, it would be right there.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @04:52AM
> Like the GP said, Streisand.
Streisand relies on currency. Something taken out of the indexes two years ago isn't current, it is old news.
> if your future boss finds out about some juvenile indiscretion, and that is going to make a difference, do you really want to work there?
(1) We don't all have a choice about what jobs are available to us.
(2) This is about way more than just who we work for, this is about the entire social fabric that surrounds us.
> Its not gone. If the BBC decided to have a search engine of its own site, it would be right there.
Missing the point you are. Making the effort of having to use the BBC's search engine, just to search the BBC for someone you are only mildly curious about, is the goal. You would have to be awfully dedicated to think of searching the BBC out of all the hundreds of news websites for mention of somebody who doesn't even rate as a D-list celebrity. At this point I'm just repeating the first post - the fact that you didn't get it the first time means you probably won't get it the second time either.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 29 2015, @05:17AM
Streisand relies on currency.
Nonsense. Currency never enters into it.
It relies ONLY on someone trying to use the power of the state to hide information, only to have that blow up in their face because of their ham handed efforts to use governmental power for their own petty convenience.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @02:21PM
It relies ONLY on someone trying to use the power of the state to hide information, only to have that blow up in their face because of their ham handed efforts to use governmental power for their own petty convenience.
Capitalizing it does not make it so. Try this experiment: There have been many cases of streisanding since the term was coined; how many do you even remember without having to google for them - which you can't do if they've been removed from google.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @01:02PM
Something that makes a difference at time of applying for employment don't have to make a difference later.
A simple example: A photo of you behind a large number of beer bottles may give the wrong impression that you are an alcoholic. However after some years of employment, your boss hopefully has figured out that you aren't, so if he comes across that image then, it won't lead him to false conclusions.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tibman on Monday June 29 2015, @04:37AM
"Right to be forgotten" is a band-aid to a social problem. The problem is most people project an outward appearance of perfection (as much as possible). If you've been alive long enough you realize that is all bullshit and everyone has problems. I don't know how many times i've heard condemnation from one party to later find out they did the exact same thing!
I also don't think you can draw any line between criminal and non-criminal either. Some social problems are worse than criminal ones. Not everything that is legal is moral and not everything that is illegal is immoral.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @02:27PM
> The problem is most people project an outward appearance of perfection (as much as possible).
It isn't about projecting perfection, it is about not being judged for one event that does not define you. That isn't a problem, that's the way people are made - perfect memories mean no slack and without slack the world seizes up because there is no room for experimentation, improvement or learning from mistakes. All things that are necessary for a healthy, creative and dynamic society.
The right to be forgotten is not a band-aid on a social problem, it is a correction to a problem created by technology.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 29 2015, @03:13PM
Technology didn't make people do embarrassing things. It just made the problem worse. The problem is social, not technological. There is nothing wrong with experimenting, exploring, or making mistakes. The problem is defining someone for something they did years ago.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @03:42PM
> The problem is defining someone for something they did years ago.
Yes. And technology is an enabler for that problem. The idea that you can stop people from being judgey is utopianism. Drawing conclusions based on incomplete information is at the core of being human - we are pattern matching and inference machines.