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".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @09:33PM (15 children)
I trust doctors so much more now that they are suppressing information about the outcomes from past treatments.
But really, the loss of trust has been going on for awhile. That is why so many people are turning to (mostly) placebo homeopathic/naturopathic treatments. At least these treatments are less likely to mess you up even worse than doing nothing. I suspect the loss of revenue due to that is also why they tried so hard to force everyone in the US to pay them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @10:03PM (13 children)
"Every good doctor has a personal cemetery."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @10:06PM (12 children)
And so does every bad doctor. Obviously that isnt a suitable metric for assessing the performance of a doctor. Also, doctors know how to game these numbers and will often refuse to treat difficult cases.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 21 2019, @10:25PM (11 children)
This is similar to attorneys. The success rate is something to consider, but there's a big difference between professionals that only take easy cases and those that take more difficult ones. If a doctor is losing tons of patients that have difficult to treat conditions or are old, that's one thing, but if they're routinely getting bad results for younger, healthier patients with easier to treat conditions that's completely different.
Suppressing the results of these cases is bad enough, but this is a case where the doctor was investigated and found negligent, not a case of disgruntled patients filing questionable reviews.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Monday January 21 2019, @10:37PM (10 children)
So, I ask:
Which is better: losing the professional to endless retribution, or have them subject to professional review / scrutiny, and give them a chance at rehabilitation?
The same goes for anyone, really. Someone on probation is already being watched. Do we (your average citizen / jobs provider) need to watch them too? And what about after they have completed their punishment. Still? Forever?
Retribution — endless or otherwise — does not perform the same social function as rehabilitation.
--
An apple a day keeps anyone away.
If you throw it hard enough.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Monday January 21 2019, @10:58PM (9 children)
"Society" prefers direct retribution. Societ y is just a mob with (some) enforced limits.
Burnings, lynchings, summary justice and the rest are all about mob behaviour.
Elected judges appeal to this by having "lock-'em up" platforms (and history)
Bill Clinton as Governer refused clemency for a badly mentally impaired death row inmate, so as not to appear "soft on crime", as that would hurt his run for the presidency.
For the mob, there is never enough punishment. It is relished. The same emotions is likley what sells trash gossip magazines.
Rehabilitation *should* be the intention and expectation of all incarceration*. Life-long punishment (beyond sentence) seems to be more likely.
*it may not work, but it should be attempted.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:47AM (8 children)
The important consideration is preventing the harm of the crime, both the first time and from the possibility of recidivism. So yes, rehabilition is an important part to insure that criminals who've served their punishment are able move on to lawful endeavors without cause to commit more criminal harm.
But the punishment itself is important as well. First, it creates a large negative consequence for the crime, but proportionate to the crime. Just, standardized punishments are proportionate to the severity and harm of the crime itself (often combined with seizing the fruits of the crime when significant payoff occurs), but they should be applied otherwise you end up in a situation where some crime is incentivized because the benefits outweigh the costs.
Second, because humanity is a mob, punishment is also to a degree a public spectacle to demonstrate that justice was done. If the public doesn't see justice done, it will take it upon itself to deliver justice. An example of such is tribal conflicts where members of a family or tribe are killed because one member of the tribe was perceived to have committed a serious crime. One quickly loses all aspects of justice, even the basic eye-for-an-eye justice.
Emphasizing solely the rehabilitation aspect ignores these other important roles.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday January 22 2019, @02:16AM
The mob wants retribution, punishment, and suffering.
Society needs rehabilitation and reform.
Alas, these things are often in opposition.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:26PM (6 children)
>First, it creates a large negative consequence for the crime, but proportionate to the crime.
Unfortunately, that appears to have negligible effect on discouraging crime. Presumably because if you believed you were going to get caught, you wouldn't commit the crime in the first place. Therefore the punishment you don't believe you'll face is largely irrelevant to your decision.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 22 2019, @06:00PM (5 children)
We have thousands of years of history showing otherwise. Sure, it doesn't discourage crime where the people involved either didn't think of the consequences or weren't aware that the action was a crime, but that's actually a minority of crime. It's the people who think "if I kill X, then I get Y" who are the most dangerous. For if they succeed, they can then start thinking "if I kill 10*X, then I get 10*Y" and scale up from there. It's only when they run into fellow murderers at cross-purposes that they stop that logic, yielding most of modern history in the process.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 23 2019, @02:55AM (4 children)
Actually, no, we don't. We have thousands of years of culture based on the presumption that it works. When we actually look at it scientifically, we find that the data doesn't support the presumption.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:59AM (3 children)
Nobody does culture because they assume it works. And culture != history.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:26PM (2 children)
>Nobody does culture because they assume it works.
Of course they do - cultural practices continue because people do things the way their parents did them, assuming that's the "right" way. And usually their parents did it that way because *their* parents did it that way, because their parents did it that way, because their parents did it that way...
Culture is mostly an inter-generational game of telephone, and history is just a fiction built from the sparse records we have of previous generations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 24 2019, @03:30AM (1 child)
In response to some AC's post about their perception of how to curb the power of governments, megacorps, accumulation of wealth, etc.
Should it be legal for these megacorps to have the sort of power you think they have? Could criminal law provide a disincentive to some of the issues like bribery, fraud, embezzlement and theft, criminal negligence, etc. Or are such punishments of little use since corporate executives and rich people do things like bribe politicians or deliberately faking environmental tests in the heat of the moment? "I was going to the local pub, your honor, and one thing led to another. Before I knew it, I somehow had set up a $14 billion dollar pyramid scheme and fled to Brazil after accidentally wiring all that money to the Cayman Islands. I must have had a few too many!"
Crime isn't just irrational stuff or culture. It's also about preventing large destructive acts from greed or avarice.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 24 2019, @05:29AM
Could it? Certainly - if you can manage to get the legislation passed, and then enforced. And we have made some progress in that direction.
I read your comment as more targetted at blue-collar crime, what with appeasing the mob and all. The mob rarely get appeased when white-collar crimes are involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22 2019, @09:28AM
the district court of Amsterdam
(Score: 2) by Revek on Monday January 21 2019, @10:52PM (5 children)
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
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday January 22 2019, @12:01AM (3 children)
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)
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)
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
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
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.?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Tuesday January 22 2019, @01:33AM (5 children)
Add a single IF statement to their search.
IF Search.Term contains Doctor.Name then result = "Doctor.Name has invoked their Right to be Forgotton. No Search Results will be Returned".
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:34AM (4 children)
Part of me really likes this but it does sound too much like the "why would you care about encryption or wire tapping if you have nothing to hide" .
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Tuesday January 22 2019, @03:52AM (3 children)
I am a bit conflicted really. I can sympathize with both sides of the 'right to be forgotten', and you can find plenty of examples favouring either side, from serial criminals to doxxed political activists.
But from Google's side, it really spikes the guns on the 'right to be forgotten'. If I was googling a doctor and that came up I would be looking for another real quick.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dwilson on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:59AM (2 children)
The term applied to smooth-bore cannon. To 'spike the gun' was to temporarily disable it by jamming the torch-hole. Repairing the damage was a matter of hours at best, a day or two at worst, provided the trained men and a few simple tools were available.
I learned that a few days ago, so seeing you use the expression the way you did caught my attention. I'm having trouble seeing how it's applicable. What temporary problem does 'the right to be forgotten' cause for google?
- D
(Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Tuesday January 22 2019, @05:22AM
That is the original use, yes, but language moves on https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/spike+guns [thefreedictionary.com]
----
I'm assuming that google opposes the right to be forgotten.* Making it worse for the people who force it is a way of opposing its use.
*based on
1/ It costs them time/money to implement filtering, and
2/ It opens them up to liability when the filtering fails, and
3/ They can't sell ads for sue-happy lawyers next to results for dishonest doctors.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday January 22 2019, @04:39PM
>Repairing the damage was a matter of hours at best, a day or two at worst[...]I'm having trouble seeing how it's applicable.
Now, imagine the context in which doing such a thing would be worth the trouble: during a battle in which you had temporarily captured an enemy cannon, but didn't want to try to hold it.
In which case a few hours may as well be eternity. It's a temporary problem inflicted at a critical time, which may well change the course of a battle (and the ownership of the cannons)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @01:56AM
What the Dutch surgeon's name? I've looked at a bunch of articles and can't find it anywhere.