Following EU Ruling, BBC Article Excluded From Google Searches 239
Albanach writes: In 2007, the BBC's economics editor, Robert Peston, penned an article on the massive losses at Merrill Lynch and the resulting resignation of their CEO Stan O'Neal. Today, the BBC has been notified that the 2007 article will no longer appear in some Google searches made within the European Union, apparently as a result of someone exercising their new-found "right to be forgotten." O'Neal was the only individual named in the 2007 article. While O'Neal has left Merrill Lynch, he has not left the world of business, and now holds a directorship at Alcoa, the world's third largest aluminum producer with $23 billion in revenues in 2013.
Before you laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you laugh about these high profile cases of people trying to be "forgotten," remember that after a while, these removals will become so commonplace that people will stop paying attention, and the system will work as intended.
Streisand effect? (Score:1, Insightful)
What about this slashdot entry? Will it also not appear in google search results?
Who controls the past... (Score:5, Insightful)
...controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
Whoops (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't take long to find the giant flaw in with the "right to be forgotten," did it? One percenters will now use it to selectively edit their Internet profile.
Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand you have a guy who got in a bar fight when he was in college. Some drunk idiot spills beer on his girlfriend, so he confronts drunk idiot and beats him down, then gets charged with assault. On the other hand, you have this piece of shit (Stan O'Neil).
Which is worse? The college kid having an assault charge hanging over his head the rest of his life, or guys like Stan O'Neil being given a free-pass when they rape millions of people for billions of their hard-earned dollars.
Perhaps the answer is to have a 15-year (or 20-year) waiting period before you can exercise your right to be forgotten? Maybe the answer is just not to commit a crime in the first place.
Re:Blaming Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why the journalist is blaming Google for this ("So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?") when it's obvious they're not doing this voluntarily.
Because the people in charge are terrified of Google, the Internet, and their citizens use of it. So the BBC, kowtowing as usual to power, but still with enough journalistic testicles to make some form of protest, blames Google.. in the hope they can get away with it. Rather than pinning the blame on the corrupt shitpile of lawyers and wonks who forced Google to do this in a desperate attempt to make money the deciding factor in information control and suppression.
Re:Before you laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just get this out of the way now: If Hitler were alive today he'd be able to have Google remove all links to anything relating to himself as the Nazi leader.
Another question to be asked: If a journalistic article can be taken down, could a page with commenters referencing Hitler (as in this /. article due to this very post) be removed from Google's search?
Re:Who controls the past... (Score:5, Insightful)
1984; the instruction manual for our lords and masters.
Google should create a special app/site for takedown requests, and call it 'Winston'.
Re: Whoops (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sort of. Google's search is for the masses. Financial sector companies subscribe to other, paywalled sources of information, like Lexis and Bloomberg. They'll still carry the uncensored truth, which is a great selling point.
Blame Google. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blaming Google (Score:4, Insightful)
He doesn't really blame Google. From the article:
He does question why there's no apparent right to appeal. It would certainly seem reasonable to allow the person responsible for an article to highlight why it is still relevant or not outdated since often they will have better knowledge of the subject area than a paralegal.
Re:Blame Google. (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't like the law, because they don't like spending money, just making it.
As opposed to all of those other companies that love spending money and hate making it?
Re:Blame Google. (Score:5, Insightful)
So how much money is Google expected to spend reviewing whether seven year old news stories are covered by the ruling? Particularly when they're liable for court costs and damages if the EU court later decides that it is covered by the ruling?
Re: Not Voluntarily (Score:5, Insightful)
We can call it the Ministry of Truth
Re:Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... (Score:2, Insightful)
How about changing our culture so that public crucifixion based on someone's past mistakes is not acceptable?
Re:Blame Google. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blame Google. (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course they don't like the law, it's a horrible law. And why shouldn't they wind up the news outlets against this, it isn't as if this law doesn't affect the outlets as well. This is merely dragging them into the playing field, where they should have belonged in the first place.
Re:Blame Google. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean that credit rating agencies are libeling you if they give you anything but the highest rating? Because isn't "rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation" exactly what they're doing then?
Or does these laws only protect the first-class citizens?
Re:Blame Google. (Score:3, Insightful)
They could also work within the law as interpreted by the courts to work out efficient procedures that everybody can live with, which is a better idea, long term.
No, I think the malicious compliance approach is more effective long term. I think when European politicians get their press and websites dropped, then we'll start seeing some fixing of this terrible law. While efficient procedures for compliance leads to no incentives for improving or eliminating the law in question.