Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Reports 50 Links From Google 'Forgotten', Issues Transparency Report

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the down-the-memory-hole dept.

Wikipedia 81

netbuzz (955038) writes The Wikimedia Foundation this morning reports that 50 links to Wikipedia from Google have been removed under Europe's "right to be forgotten" regulations, including a page about a notorious Irish bank robber and another about an Italian criminal gang. "We only know about these removals because the involved search engine company chose to send notices to the Wikimedia Foundation. Search engines have no legal obligation to send such notices. Indeed, their ability to continue to do so may be in jeopardy. Since search engines are not required to provide affected sites with notice, other search engines may have removed additional links from their results without our knowledge. This lack of transparent policies and procedures is only one of the many flaws in the European decision." Wikimedia now has a page listing all notifications that search listing were removed. itwbennett also wrote in with Wikimedia news this morning: the Wikimedia foundation published its first ever transparency report, detailing requests to remove or alter content (zero granted, ever) and content removed for copyright violations.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Quick slashdot editors! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47614959)

Time to get beta forgotten!

Re:Quick slashdot editors! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616471)

That'd be great, but it's getting worse. I see other sites doing betas too. Such as dictionary.com and amazon.com.

By the way, what are those 50 links? Or did someone forget to mention them?

As a European... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47614983)

As a European (Greek) i must beg our American (USA) brothers and sisters to defend their/our "right to remember"...

Re:As a European... (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47614997)

I've gotta say, I didn't see rampant abuse of the law coming so fast.

Re:As a European... (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47615021)

I've gotta say, I didn't see rampant abuse of the law coming so fast.

Really? Because pretty much as soon as it happened this is what most of us expected.

The people who want to do this probably started the process the next day.

Re:As a European... (1, Insightful)

ramper (1206148) | about 3 months ago | (#47615057)

Or the people who don't want this to happen started the practice the next day to eventually lead to this story to make the situation more visible?

Re:As a European... (1)

Big Bill the Conjure (644483) | about 3 months ago | (#47615273)

Or the people who don't want this to happen started the practice the next day to eventually lead to this story to make the situation more visible?

Even if people are making bad-faith requests just for the purpose of highlighting the flaws in the law/process, those flaws remain nonetheless.

Re:As a European... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615717)

No, because the people that don't want this to happen (such as me) don't have access to the national ID documents of people in Europe who are famous enough to take down so that it would cause an uproar. Remember, they have to submit their equivalent of a national ID, driver's license, etc. with the take down request. Sure, it could be that someone famous with a slightly shady history would not want this to happen and would remove something from their past hoping that people would notice and that the EU would come to their senses. But it would still probably end up being a "Streisand" on them no matter what their intentions.

Re:As a European... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616673)

What is acceptable ID is less than clear, however it is clear that it *doesn't have to be state id.
from google's form:

Please attach a legible copy of a document that verifies your identity (or the identity of the person whom you are authorized to represent). A passport or other government-issued ID is not required.

Re:As a European... (3, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 months ago | (#47615069)

Wikipedia should also link to pages about the relevant laws, and discussing why they're a really bad idea.

Re:As a European... (1, Offtopic)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47615105)

I don't know who modded you troll. Your objection to my post is totally reasonable.

You might have seen it. I didn't.

Re:As a European... (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47615891)

You might have seen it. I didn't.

LOL, you know in general, that you are less cynical and paranoid than me is probably not a terrible thing.

I've just learned to go straight to the worst case scenario, and then give the world a little time to catch up. There's usually a 3-6 month lag time before people go from saying "you're a paranoid loon" to "holy crap". ;-)

My wife, however, still stands by paranoid loon most of the time.

Re:As a European... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47615133)

you mean the people who wanted this had all the paperwork ready to go and all they had to do was hit "submit" on the day it passed

Re:As a European... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616165)

I know I would. As someone who doesn't even have anything compromising about me out there, I would want to be wiped clean fron Google and Bing.

Re:As a European... (1, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47615193)

I can actually support the intent of the law: To give people a chance to redeem themselves. People live, people make mistakes, sometimes horrible mistakes. Horrible enough that they make the news and that they are spread on the internet. But even they should have a chance to see their misdeeds eventually forgotten, to allow them to turn the page over and start over.

Of course something like that is quickly picked up by crooks who only want to be "forgotten" to repeat their offenses.

So how about a compromise: You have the right to be forgotten. Once. Everyone can trip and fall, and everyone should be allowed to get back up without people constantly trying to kick him back down into the gutter. But if you do it again, you didn't want to be forgotten to improve and redeem yourself. You only wanted to get another chance to repeat your offenses.

And then it should come back for you to haunt you forever. No need to build a national "hall of shame". I'm fairly sure something like this will be built before the ink on the law had time to dry.

Re:As a European... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615265)

It is irrelevant whether you agree with the intent of the law. The absolute indisputable fact is that it is not only utterly unenforceable, but it also will make the problem worse in virtually every single case via the Streisand Effect.

Unenforceable laws are a waste. It does not matter if clueless people think they're a good idea. They still serve absolutely no purpose other than giving bureaucrats another reason for pretending that they're useful.

Re:As a European... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616191)

The Streisand Effect is largely avoided by the lack of transparency. Sure, some big name people may trigger the Streisand Effect when information many people look for disappears, but the averge schmuk should be safe.

Re:As a European... (1)

maligor (100107) | about 3 months ago | (#47616193)

This law seems quite effective and enforceable really. How many search engines are you going to go through looking for a person before you decide there's nothing out there about them? The approach of stopping search indexes certainly shows a understanding of how people use the internet. Inaccessible data on the internet might just aswell not exist, there will be a special group of people who know the secret, but it won't affect public knowledge.

I'm certainly of two minds about the law, jaywalking and causing a serious traffic incident killing bus full of schoolchildren would probably mean you'd be practically unemployable for the rest of your life. The hard path of being allowed to grow up or being trapped in your past. (Or the abuse that it'll get)

Re:As a European... (2)

Big Bill the Conjure (644483) | about 3 months ago | (#47615313)

Who will be responsible for tracking how many times people have asked to be 'forgotten'? And does the one-Mulligan rule apply to each 'forgettable' incident, or do you only get one 'forget' overall, or is there some formula to be applied?

Re:As a European... (2)

Wootery (1087023) | about 3 months ago | (#47615327)

So how about a compromise: You have the right to be forgotten. Once

Well, no, because it's obviously a broken idea. There are legitimate uses for the 'right to be forgotten' principle, right? As you said, you agree with the intent of the law. What is it which guarantees that no individual will ever have a need to be 'forgotten' twice?

Example off the top of my head: a victim of two unrelated rapes, who doesn't want a Wikipedia article about them.

(This is to say nothing of the unenforceable/Streisand/free-speech concerns.)

Re:As a European... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615999)

Example off the top of my head: a victim of two unrelated rapes, who doesn't want a Wikipedia article about them.

"Off the top of my head" was probably not the best anatomical phrase.
Being a rape victim doesn't mean someone should have a Wikipedia article.
If someone should have a Wikipedia article, the fact of being a rape victim doesn't necessarily belong in that article.
Wikipedia has rules against having articles about everybody who's been reported on, and against recording every reported fact in a person's article.

So Wikipedia's editorial policies really make your example a non-example.
But if you were talking about some other website, "not wanting it to be reported" should not be a matter for the law.
The US still has much to learn from Europe, but we absolutely got freedom of the press right.

Re:As a European... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 months ago | (#47616469)

The US still has much to learn from Europe, but we absolutely got freedom of the press right.

So awesome a statement. Please do not rip the memory from my brain.

Re:As a European... (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about 3 months ago | (#47618359)

.....doesn't necessarily belong in that article.....

As AmiMoJo points out [slashdot.org] , a better example is that of someone falsely accused of rape.

"not wanting it to be reported" should not be a matter for the law.

And I wasn't saying it should be. I was pointing out a problem with Opportunist's suggestion. If you reject the intent of the law, you aren't on the same as Opportunist.

The US still has much to learn from Europe, but we absolutely got freedom of the press right.

I'm inclined to agree (Brit here, for what that's worth), but again, I was commenting on the 'one strike' idea.

Re:As a European... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47617537)

Example off the top of my head: a victim of two unrelated rapes, who doesn't want a Wikipedia article about them.

That's a different issue, since in many European countries alleged rape victims are granted anonymity and publishing their names is actually a crime. A better example would be an article about the alleged rapist who was found innocent.

There are people in the UK who have had to change their names because of false rape allegations. One guy recently had to apply for an emergency fast-track order so he could get his name changed before his university issued his degree certificate.

A better idea (3)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47615509)

Let's let technology improve our culture by showing us which things everyone does, and which things almost nobody does but which we need to know about.

Re:As a European... (3)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 months ago | (#47616441)

I do not care how nice you normally are.

You do NOT have the right to force someone else to forget things about you!

Period.

Re:As a European... (0)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 months ago | (#47617195)

Do I have the right to another chance when I made a mistake once, learned that it was a mistake and want to do my best to avoid doing it again? If not, why not just keep everyone locked up for good, if we don't expect them to come out of prison reformed and improved, if we fully expect them to repeat their offense, why release them at all?

Re:As a European... (3)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 months ago | (#47617319)

Again. This is not about what you would like for yourself. It is what you can and can not force other people to do.

I can understand your problem with comprehending this. There is an entire group of people in the world that confuse a right (Something that can not be taken from you) with what they want (Stuff people have to do for me or give me).

Just like those that think healthcare is a right. Might be a good idea, might be a bad idea. Is not a right.

Re:As a European... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47622533)

. There is an entire group of people in the world that confuse a right (Something that can not be taken from you) with what they want (Stuff people have to do for me or give me). Just like those that think healthcare is a right. Might be a good idea, might be a bad idea. Is not a right.

There is nothing which can not be taken from you. Therefore, there are no natural rights. There are only those rights which we as cultures, societies, or other groups decide, agree, and proceed to protect. By that token, the right to health care as as valid a concept as any other right — we have the ability to provide it, and some argue that we therefore have the responsibility. Whether that's true is another argument entirely, and it's the argument you really are meant to be having when you argue about whether health care is a right. It's only not a right because we haven't decided that it is one.

Re:As a European... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 3 months ago | (#47622883)

To be clear. A right is something that "We agree as a culture to not take from you".

Better

What we agree to take by force from other people to give to you is not a right. It may or may not be the right thing to do but it is not a right.

Re: As a European... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47617463)

A better idea would be everyones right to a new identity.

Re:As a European... (2)

vemene (466110) | about 3 months ago | (#47618145)

As a European (Greek) i must beg our American (USA) brothers and sisters to defend their/our "right to remember"...

It is technically known as "History" and most educational systems worldwide (even in Greece, where it was practically invented for Western Civilization) offer core-curriculum courses in it, as it is considered an essential public good.

Kudos (5, Insightful)

RobertM1968 (951074) | about 3 months ago | (#47614985)

Bravo to Google and Wikipedia for trying to be transparent about this. The law used seems absurd, and is open for much abuse (think politics, for one).

Re:Kudos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615225)

I thought slashdot was getting hard over this totally citizen-friendly, second-chance-giving, non-abusable law last month?

Re:Kudos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615359)

The law used seems absurd, and is open for much abuse (think politics, for one).

It smacks of the European elite resisting the idea that equality and accountability extending to including themselves, as well as the lowly populous.

Whether the "old families" of nobility, or new/old wealth, or political or financial power; it is a pretty blatant case of special rules for "special" people. Had it been a plumber with an old record of aggravated assault, it wouldn't of been considered.

Stupidity at its finest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615019)

This lack of transparent policies and procedures is only one of the many flaws in the European decision.

That would be an understatement. It surprises me Google does send out notices, however are those the ones their willing to send out, and could it be possible that they may be holding back on other notices. Probably more entertaining these laws are things the US have, which is to say they lack any thing close to commonsense . How these morons allowed this law to go into effect (and yes I know it isn't a US law) after it was clearly incompetent, hell an Autistic child could have done far better, only shows me that either voters are suckers, or politicians are able to buy there way into office (they actually already do that with "target" campaigning)

About to be deleted (5, Funny)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 3 months ago | (#47615053)

The funny thing is, both en pages were about to be deleted for lack of notoriety. Now will the all the media coverage, they have suddenly become notable, and my bet is both articles will be retained. Streisand effect at it's finest.

Re: About to be deleted (2)

LocutusOfBorg1 (1549493) | about 3 months ago | (#47615095)

I didn't look at the en pages, but Renato Vallanzasca is a famous italian criminal, and I don't think the page was candidate for deletion. (altough I think the notoriety of the criminal will riseup again)

Re: About to be deleted (2)

smellsofbikes (890263) | about 3 months ago | (#47615607)

In fact, the Wikipedia page about his group of thugs, in English, now specifically points out that the Italian version has been altered because of Data Protection Laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]

Right to force others to use stone tools (4, Interesting)

sinij (911942) | about 3 months ago | (#47615063)

Dear humanity, welcome to the Information Age. Why do we call it Information age? Because we developed technologies that allow us to retain significant portion of all information and knowledge produced, from mundane to crucial. As such, your right to forget should not, cannot trump our right to remember.

Re:Right to force others to use stone tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615113)

Remember you soon!

Re:Right to force others to use stone tools (4, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47615269)

Don't worry, the NSA isn't forgetting you, you're just required to forget some criminals. Hope that helps.

Re:Right to force others to use stone tools (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 3 months ago | (#47617591)

Your right to remember is intact, what is affected is your "right" to collect information about individuals in a database and provide access to it for profit. Such businesses have been regulated for decades in Europe, and the internet doesn't change anything.

WMF posted images without links (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615091)

It would be nice if someone enhanced their page to be more than images of the removal notices. Having an easily clickable list would be a nice addition.

well, this makes things easy (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 3 months ago | (#47615101)

if wiki is being sent alerts to the fact that they are having links removed, all they need to do is create a static page with all the links no longer listed on google. and boom, Streisand effect in action.

Remember this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615107)

Wikipedia's founder censors plenty of content [slashdot.org] himself. Then he says stuff like this [telegraph.co.uk] . Right.

See Europe, I told you this would happen (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 months ago | (#47615111)

Right to be forgotten is horrible misguided and will only be a tool to create memory holes.

Re:See Europe, I told you this would happen (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 3 months ago | (#47615575)

I think you posted this on the wrong discussion.

We're talking about legislation, not C. ;)

*hides*

Noticing an unsurprising trend (4, Insightful)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 3 months ago | (#47615127)

Two of the three articles Wikimedia received notices about are for convicted criminals (Gerry Hutch and Renato Vallanzasca) who thrive on publicity for money. Both of them have proved litigious in the past, so it's not surprising they'd want the Wiki pages delisted. However, I can't help but think that running a notoriously violent branch of the Mafia in Milan or robbing banks aren't exactly the kind of things the law hoped would be forgotten.

Re:Noticing an unsurprising trend (3, Insightful)

KFT (663082) | about 3 months ago | (#47615167)

Given that the results still show up when you search for these names in the EU, it was likely someone else that was at some point in time mentioned on this page (correctly or not, it is Wikipedia after all). So now when you search for this other person, this specific Wikipedia page will not show up.

Re:Noticing an unsurprising trend (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615303)

So if somebody wrote an article on Wikipedia about Geoff Brigham or Michelle Paulson posting their private addresses and/or where do they children go to school, would they just leave the article for Google to index it?

Yes, some people are using this court decision to remove access to information about them, probably because of bad publicity; But that is exactly what this is for. Governments and courts already keep records and delete them when necessary, so important information, like criminal records, are not in jeopardy. What you will miss is gossip.

Furthermore, the same way than a person retains the rights to a picture with them on it, any other information deriving and/or inherent from a person can be thought as his property and thus, the person shall have the right to publish (give away) or "unpublish" (take away) his property.

The fact that some media allow easy copying of data (in this case, duplication of somebody's property), does not means that the owner lost all rights over it. Otherwise we would not have "copyrights".

Re:Noticing an unsurprising trend (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47615519)

However, I can't help but think that running a notoriously violent branch of the Mafia in Milan or robbing banks aren't exactly the kind of things the law hoped would be forgotten.

Not exactly. They were hoping to make people forget things like banks using violent, mafia-esque tactics.

Re:Noticing an unsurprising trend (1)

onepoint (301486) | about 3 months ago | (#47615923)

well I could not help it and let's see what happens when I post this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Noticing an unsurprising trend (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616757)

> I can't help but think that running a notoriously violent branch of the Mafia in Milan or robbing banks aren't exactly the kind of things the law hoped would be forgotten.

In fact there is a major "loophole" in the law, the public interest exception. I can't see how these pages do not fall under the public interest exception. The fact that they were de-listed suggests either someone at google forgot to apply the exception or they did so on purpose in order to rile people up.

I like this law (0, Flamebait)

KFT (663082) | about 3 months ago | (#47615149)

If I make a page now writing that you are a pedophile, with your name and address on top of it, and I am outside of your jurisdiction, there is absolutely nothing you can do. If you are a European, you can at least get this page disassociated from your name in search engines.

Lets leave it to the justice system to do justice, please, we've seen what vigilante justice brings us.

Re:I like this law (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615251)

That's why you make your own website with your name that will rank higher than any libeler could make.

Re:I like this law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616121)

Except that you have given the perfect bad analogy. They are asking for the right for true historical facts to be "forgotten", not some libel/slander crap that a random person makes up.

And in the case of Google, they are asking for links to such facts to be removed, rather than asking the original source to remove them, which would result in automatic removal from Google once the original source was re-indexed.

Request to remove or alter content (2)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 3 months ago | (#47615371)

Zero granted, ever???

I can't imagine that absolutely none of the requests where verifiable facts. {like a mis-typed date}

Re:Request to remove or alter content (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616139)

There's a hard line of distinction to be drawn between The Wikimedia Foundation (has employees, is a nonprofit organization, is publishing this report, and primarily responsible for hosting the infrastructure on which Wikipedia resides and managing the databases and backend software), and the Wikipedia Community (an open online community of volunteer editors with their own self-assembled hierarchy of editorial review boards and their own ever-evolving content policies).

Most content disputes are handled by the community, using the community's existing, transparent, and generally-fair policies. If someone sends a legal notice to the Foundation over a simple technical error, they're aiming in the wrong direction, and the Foundation is going to tell them to take it up with the community. The community is generally reasonable and lawful, and they actually will honor *legitimate* requests that flow through legitimate channels for transparent, public editing.

The only reason the Foundation steps in over content is where there are grave legal issues at stake that require its intervention or assistance.

Request to remove or alter content (2)

Cyberdyne (104305) | about 3 months ago | (#47616373)

I can't imagine that absolutely none of the requests where verifiable facts. {like a mis-typed date}

That wouldn't come under "right to be forgotten" though, a simple edit or correction request would address that.

The whole notion of a "right" to prohibit someone else from making a factually accurate statement on one website about the content of another site seems utterly absurd to me. Removing the destination page itself could perhaps be excused in some cases ... but to accept that the owner of a page making a statement about somebody has a right to keep it, even if it's out of date, then turn round and gag the likes of Google from making current factual statements about that page? Every "judge" supporting that nonsense needs to be unemployed ASAP.

Re:Request to remove or alter content (2)

Carnildo (712617) | about 3 months ago | (#47618197)

Requests to fix errors come in all the time -- and are forwarded to the community, who decide if the request is reasonable or not. In such cases, the Foundation merely acts as a conduit for the request, rather than granting or denying it.

The denied requests come about when someone demands (and it's almost always a demand) that the Foundation use their powers as operator of the website to make a change to an article.

When will they be re-remembered? (3, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 months ago | (#47615419)

If the person dies, can Google re-enable the search result?
Or have these pages gone into a permanent black hole as far as search engines are concerned?

Re:When will they be re-remembered? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47621841)

Well, that is one of the fields the requester has to fill out for Google: Date/Time of Death

That way, it can be automated instead of forcing them to have a site to tell their status:

Ala Abe Vigoda [abevigoda.com]

No more Discussion search too (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 3 months ago | (#47615437)

Google also recently axed its very useful Discussion search function: Where has the discussion search filter gone? - Google Product Forums [google.com] No reason given - ostensibly to combat piracy in bootlegging forums? And to kill grandmothers who are trying to figure out why they have these shooting pains racing up their left arm. Oh yeah, etc. Nice one, Google. Just another instance of them being useless pains in the ass for whatever reason.

No transparency at all (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615515)

What everybody seems to forget is that google only told wikipedia that "certain searches" will no longer return the link mentioned. Not what those searched are.

If I google (in .eu) for "gerry hutch", the first result is the wikipedia page for gerry hutch. Exactly the link that was removed for "certain searches". So the "certain search" wasn't "gerry hutch". It could have been your mother. And unless your from a familly of Irish bankrobbers, it is highly unlikely that the wikipedia page of gerry hutch is a relevant result for your mother....

But only if we know what the search was, we can have any trust in Google actually doing what the court ordered them.

In other words... (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 3 months ago | (#47615553)

We're about to see the world's single biggest application of the Streisand Effect, ever.

Fuck Europe (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 3 months ago | (#47615639)

Fuck the EU All of it.

We've always been at war with East Asia* (1)

Crimey McBiggles (705157) | about 3 months ago | (#47615789)

*Eurasia

Return of the Encyclopedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47615919)

Soon, we may need to rely on paper Encyclopedia's again as Big Brother revises history.

We lost freedom (2, Interesting)

aepervius (535155) | about 3 months ago | (#47615935)

People apparently forget, that before google we all enjoyed a right to be forgotten. The *original* article were and are still available. They are simply not made conveniently extremly easy to get. And this was as it was before google. This is not censorship, as the original article are still available. Now with google you cannot ever be forgotten. A society which cannot forget , is a society which cannot forgive, is one where freedom are reduced. Understand this : freddom is not at what society willingly accept. Freedom is to be found at the edges what society may not like, like gay mariage, like smoking pot, or whatever legal or borderline legal variety of things. If you get caught and society never forget you have a much harder time, and people will simply forgoe their freedom rather than get fucked for life.
paradoxically if you remove the right to be forgotten you reduce the freedom of people because they know if they get caught in the gray zone, then society will never forget and they get fucked

Google is an asshat for reporting intentionally and I hope the european regulator whoop their ass for that. And most people do not understand that with their cry of censorship they are actually removing freedom to us all.

Re:We lost freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616185)

Agreed.
Google is on a slippery slope here.
Google can hide behind "We just provide results, we don't make up the links" for so long.
Google's bread and butter is ranking the results.
Google is passing judgement on how 'relevant' a link is.
This is getting close to an editorial judgement, which can be actionable.

Re:We lost freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47619717)

You do not have a right to point a gun at a person and tell them to burn the picture of you doing something despicable. Maybe Japanese can "excercise their rights to be forgotten" regarding their raping of China.

Re:We lost freedom (1)

swillden (191260) | about 3 months ago | (#47619993)

A society which cannot forget , is a society which cannot forgive

That's a rather bold assertion. Care to support it?

Yes, I can do. (1)

aepervius (535155) | about 2 months ago | (#47643453)

A person which was arrested (even if it does not appear in their judicial case) or involved in a local scandal would in the past still find a job since no firm for a normal job would go as far as to send somebody to search their private life (your average job). But now a days , if you smoked pot and it is noted somewhere even if you have no judicial file, you get double whammy punished because people at job interview will avoid you. And that count for all sort of controversial shit. You get gay marrier ? published the ban ? Google do not forget. A job interviewer or neighbors googling could find out, even after you moved to anotehr town. In the past not so.

In all case, because now at job itnerview people can google your name, any transgression against the "middle way" can and will be reacted negatively by part of the society. But before google and search engine, it was relatively easy to correct (moving to the otther side of the country). Nowasayd not so much. This is the aprt about not forgiving. Because your transgression can be found out once documented *EVEN* much later , and still punished by society. And since society as an average middle way is nearly always either much more liberal to some of the "edge" (imagine finding out you are in a neo nazi party) or more conservative than the other edge (imagine people finding out your borderline sexual behavior) then you get fucked for your "trangression". Or even if you did something idiotic like that PR wioman and her twitter idiotic action ? You think anybody will hire her in a PR job now ? She is radioactive material because google *never* forget. But without google, she could maybe wait it out a year or two, then try somewhere else. With google ? not so much.

Re:Yes, I can do. (1)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47644721)

You didn't actually support your assertion. You still just continue to claim that forgiving without forgetting is impossible. I agree that it will require a societal change, but in a world where everyone's peccadilloes are public knowledge, I think that change will happen.

List of links to "forgotten" pages? (1)

Z-MaxX (712880) | about 3 months ago | (#47616167)

I see the linked "Notices received from search engines" page has several low quality screen shot images showing the Google "notice of removal from Google Search". The links can barely be made out from these images. How about actually copying and pasting the list of URLs as text? Let's crank the Streisand effect up to 11!

This is such bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616339)

Yea the subject says it all.

Google and Gerry Hutch .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616705)

Google [google.com]

Yandex [yandex.com]

ixquick [ixquick.com] Gerry Hutch

The Rich Can Already Scrub their Online Reputation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616801)

Anyone who thinks this law is terrible should read this article about how rich people are already able to bury bad press about themselves.

Scrubbed [nymag.com]
I watched online as a college classmate went from disgrace to redemption in months. That’s when I found myself deep in the world of black-ops reputation management.

wikify those notices (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47616975)

so search engines can index them!

(and so we can easily click and see what the fuss is or isnt about).

Mostly Dutch (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 3 months ago | (#47617403)

"The Wikimedia Foundation this morning reports that 50 links to Wikipedia from Google have been removed under Europe's "right to be forgotten" regulations,..."

Looking at the Wikipedia page listing the notifications they've received of pages removed from the european search engine https://wikimediafoundation.or... [wikimediafoundation.org] , two were english wikipedia, two wre italian, and the remainder are all nl.wikipedia-- Netherlands.

So, apparently the Dutch have much more desire to be forgotten than the rest of Europe. (Or else, possibly, they're just more efficient at getting the right-to-be-forgotten notices out)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?