Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google EU Your Rights Online

Google Reinstating Some 'Forgotten' Links 74

Posted by Soulskill
from the now-that-a-point-has-been-made dept.
An anonymous reader writes Only days after receiving harsh criticism from all corners of the internet for taking down links to news articles, Google has started to reinstate those links. Google's Peter Barron denied that they were simply granting all "right to be forgotten" requests. "The European Court of Justice [ECJ] ruling was not something that we welcomed, that we wanted — but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law," he said. Still, Google's actions are being called "tactical" for how quickly they were able to stir public dissent over the EU ruling. "It's convenient, then, that it's found a way to get the media to kick up the fuss for it: there are very few news organisations in the world who are happy to hear their output is being stifled. A few automated messages later, the story is back in the headlines – and Google is likely to be happy about that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Reinstating Some 'Forgotten' Links

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, 2014 @04:26PM (#47385261)

    Did anyone honestly expect anything less? The "right to be forgotten" was bound to disproportionately hit news organizations by nature.

  • by Nyder (754090) on Friday July 04, 2014 @04:30PM (#47385271) Journal

    People see this law for what it is, a way for the rich/politicians/scum to get rid of stories that make them look like the twats they are.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, 2014 @04:42PM (#47385321)
    Results that are libelous should result in court cases against the persons making the libelous publications. Following their conviction in a court of law, the judge should rule that the offending content should be suppressed. This ludicrous hassling of search indexes is not the answer.
  • by TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) on Friday July 04, 2014 @04:52PM (#47385357)
    Which rights of yours are being assaulted when politicians and 1%ers use Google privacy requests to snuff true information and private dissent under the guise of "privacy".

    One man's right to "privacy" is another man's right to control your information.

    My "right" to privacy can be used to conceal fraud, criminal activity, bad press and do it with the brute force of government on my side.

    And the brute force of government is the power to make you poor, to have you arrested, to put you in jail if you do not comply.
  • by pla (258480) on Friday July 04, 2014 @04:56PM (#47385381) Journal
    Google really does occupy both an enviable and a pitiable niche as regards the war on censorship / copyright / privacy.

    On the one hand, they constantly get orders to remove search results that the likes of DuckDuckGo never need to deal with.

    On the other, when they actually do remove links, they almost uniquely have the power to make the asker instantly regret the request... Whether through the "Streisand" effect, or in the present case, by "innocently" applying the demand in an overly-broad manner, Google comes out smelling like roses while those who would silence them become the next internet pariahs-of-the-week.

    Truly beautiful! And for a change (though I in no way mean to claim Google as any sort of White Knight), this effect works largely in favor of the public.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04, 2014 @05:46PM (#47385593)

    The idea that you should be able to publish anything you want anywhere (you own) is a peculiarly American idea. It's probably because the US was founded by businessmen who understand that it's far more subtle to buy out the presses, lie a lot and simply drown out dissenting speech (until it gets slightly too loud for comfort - then you bring the guns in) than it is to simply say, "No, you can't spread bullshit."

    This is why people can call for suffering for blacks and gays until the end of days and pay for dishonest political campaigns, but the only way you're going to reach a large audience is to be part of half a dozen media conglomerates. And if you say something really worth listening to - speak information about abuse in government security services, for example - suddenly your freedom to speak disappears entirely.

  • by russotto (537200) on Friday July 04, 2014 @07:41PM (#47386045) Journal

    For example, when the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed, while Democrats like Thomas Jefferson were vehemently opposed, nobody would have thought to argue it unconstitutional on Free Speech grounds.

    Democratic-Republicans -- usually called Republicans -- if you please. Jefferson's party is the parent of both parties today, though he'd hardly recognize either. And of course they were argued as unconstitutional on free speech grounds. See the third Kentucky Resolution.

You are in the hall of the mountain king.

Working...