Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Monday January 21 2019, @09:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-her-name-was-[deleted] dept.

Submitted via IRC for Sulla

A Dutch surgeon formally disciplined for her medical negligence has won a legal action to remove Google search results about her case in a landmark "right to be forgotten" ruling.

The doctor's registration on the register of healthcare professionals was initially suspended by a disciplinary panel because of her postoperative care of a patient. After an appeal, this was changed to a conditional suspension under which she was allowed to continue to practise.

But the first results after entering the doctor's name in Google continued to be links to a website containing an unofficial blacklist, which it was claimed amounted to "digital pillory". It was heard that potential patients had found the blacklist on Google and discussed the case on a web forum.

Google and the Dutch data privacy watchdog, Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, initially rejected attempts to have the links removed on the basis that the doctor was still on probation and the information remained relevant.

However, in what is said to be the first right to be forgotten case involving medical negligence by a doctor, the district court of Amsterdam subsequently ruled the surgeon had "an interest in not indicating that every time someone enters their full name in Google's search engine, (almost) immediately the mention of her name appears on the blacklist of doctors, and this importance adds more weight than the public's interest in finding this information in this way".

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/21/dutch-surgeon-wins-landmark-right-to-be-forgotten-case-google


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Revek on Monday January 21 2019, @10:52PM (5 children)

    by Revek (5022) on Monday January 21 2019, @10:52PM (#789833)

    Remove all reference to them including what they want kept. I'm thinking google shouldn't limit themselves just to their illegal actions but remove all content pertaining to them including articles about the victory over them. The right to be forgotten is just giving them a second chance to commit a crime.

    --
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:01AM (3 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:01AM (#789857)

    The "right to be forgotten" will be for rich people only.

    Dave from down the road will not be forgotten for that pot bust in 1998.

    • (Score: 2) by fishybell on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:47AM (2 children)

      by fishybell (3156) on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:47AM (#789881)

      Mostly on the US and US citizens care about pot busts.

      The US has no right to be forgotten. Quite the contrary, we revel in putting putting on lists forever.

      • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:44AM (1 child)

        by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:44AM (#789909)

        The right to be forgotten seems to be an EU thing, based on the principle that people should not be punished forever, which I have some sympathy for, but it seems to be mostly set up so that the wealthy can escape the consequences of their actions.

        Surprise, surprise.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:13AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:13AM (#789924)

          Surprise, surprise.

          The only surprising thing is that people keep looking to the government to solve things in a way that does no result in more inequality. It always does.

  • (Score: 1) by zoward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:06AM

    by zoward (4734) on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:06AM (#789863)

    I don't see how they can handle it any other way without potentially missing something they could be blamed for, short of having a full-time staff that does nothing but look for links to material that criticizes people on their "forgotten list". It does make you wonder: if I use Google to search for a doctor and can't find any direct links to anything about them whatsoever, should I look for a different doctor?

    Also: does anyone scrub them from DuckDuckGo,Bing, etc.?