Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
EU Google Medicine The Courts Your Rights Online

Dutch Surgeon Wins Landmark 'Right To Be Forgotten' Case (theguardian.com) 250

AmiMoJo shares a report from The Guardian: 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 practice. 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. The surgeon's lawyer, Willem van Lynden, said the ruling was groundbreaking in ensuring doctors would no longer be judged by Google on their fitness to practice. "Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dutch Surgeon Wins Landmark 'Right To Be Forgotten' Case

Comments Filter:
  • Yelp (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NicknameUnavailable ( 4134147 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:27PM (#57999662)
    So Yelp is allowed to keep going but medical professionals who impact lives instead of serving food are allowed to "be forgotten?"
    • Agreed

    • So Yelp is allowed to keep going but medical professionals who impact lives instead of serving food are allowed to "be forgotten?"

      There are Yelp reviews for medical professionals. A rude receptionist is by far the most common reason for a doctor to receive a poor Yelp review. I have never seen a Yelp review mention the quality of care.

      • Re: Yelp (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @01:29AM (#58000204)

        I connected with a woman on usenet years ago who was posting about the clinical misbehaviour (medical, not sexual) of an anonymous gastroenterologist. Upon comparing notes I found I correctly determined it was the same doctor who mistreated me, just from her description of the practice.

        A few years later the city's medical officer of health required a 'get checked for hepatitis' notice to be sent to her patients because of improper sterilizing of equipment. I and 6,000 other former patients received that letter. Fortunately, no patient caught it.

        That doctor eventually lost her Ontario license after an extended fight and waste of resources. $$$$$ were wasted because of her negligence, thousands were worried about catching a nasty illness.

        Former Doctor Farazli and other medical doctors should not be able to hide their negligence so trivially.

      • The point was that while the article talks about some no-name blacklist site that was damaging the career of the person, Yelp is a major site who's entire business is using negative reviews to muscle businesses into paying for good reviews in their place.
    • Guilt by fake news (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @01:51AM (#58000240) Homepage Journal

      The blacklist lists a 2-year suspension, with an update wayyyyy down the page indicating that the suspension was reduced, as noted in the OP. And you really have to read into the text to find this out.

      This comment stood out in the legal proceedings [google.com]:

      "The Central Disciplinary Court has declared a number of complaints components to be (partially) unfounded and has imposed on the plastic surgeon the lower measure of conditional suspension for a period of 4 months with a probationary period of 2 years."

      So it seems that some of the original 9 complaints are unfounded, and this is a case of he said/she said, with a dispute of what actually happened.

      If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?

      I note that Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) complained that doing an image search of him came up with a photoshopped image of his head on a Nazi uniform in the top row. (source [newsbusters.org]) Scott complained to Google and got no response, and only after asking his followers complain did the image get *somewhat* downranked. It's still there in the first page of image results.

      He points out that the image came from a twitter account with 15 followers:

      “Now, these are real pictures that people have ‘memed up’ on Twitter and somewhere else, but here’s the thing, if you click through to those pictures they are the least, smallest, most minor mention of me compared to everything I’ve been doing for years. So, I’m asking myself, and I’m gonna ask you as well, do you think given that – so one of these clicks through, one of the pictures of me wearing a photoshopped Nazi uniform, if you click through it goes to a fake Twitter account that’s pretending to be me that has only 15 followers.”

      Adams asked: “Do you think that a fake Twitter account that has only 15 followers would have enough followers that Google’s algorithm would pick that? Of all the pictures there are of me, there are a lot of pictures of me in the public domain, in articles. I was probably in 25 major articles last year alone, and this one little 15 user fake Twitter account is the fourth image that comes up?”

      It seems perfectly reasonable that people should start pushing back against Google's search manipulation, and the "right to be forgotten" seems to be a good first step.

      • by sjbe ( 173966 )

        If we are really serious about combating fake news, then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more accurate reviews?

        A reasonable question. So how do we do this in something approximating real time with good accuracy? It's easy to say we should do it but HOW is a lot more complicated with a lot of sticky censorship and free speech and freedom of the press and civil rights issues. Even for private companies. How does one decide what constitutes good versus bad information without having editorial control like a newspaper? And how do you do this in an automated way? There is too much out there for Google (or any compa

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          If you read the article you linked to, it points out that Adams correctly states that Trump wasn't referring to the supremacists, but to people who were pro and anti statue. So, you're doing exactly what Adams points out...taking it out of context.

          “I mean, my favorite example is Charlottesville,” Adams said. “When there was a protest about pro- and anti-statues and the president said that there were fine people on both sides, that was reported as he says there were fine people in the raci

      • > If we are really serious about combating fake news,
        > then why shouldn't Google have to delist the biased
        > and misleading blacklist, in favor of other more
        > accurate reviews?

        Because Google is not the source or offender. It's a neutral third party. If some article or site is libelous or defamatory, the proper course of action id to address it at the source. Do that, and it falls off the Google index the next time the original site gets spidered. Attacking Google instead is nothing more than

      • The proper remedy would've been for Scott Adams to ask Twitter to revoke the account, or at least get them to change the picture. You have a right to control how your own likeness is used [wikipedia.org]. That twitter account was clearly violating it by using a photoshopped picture of him.

        Google had nothing to do with it, and was in fact instrumental in helping him locate this violation of his personality rights. Unfortunately he then tried to shoot the messenger instead of tackling the root of the problem.

        That's
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      So Yelp is allowed to keep going but medical professionals who impact lives instead of serving food are allowed to "be forgotten?"

      Why does this not make perfect sense to you? A few iditos rambling about shity service on a review page vs a result that incorrectly says someone is unfit for practice while actually being deemed fit by the medical review board; it makes perfect sense to correct the latter problem.

      This is not surprising give the Dutch approach to problems. Do the crime, do the punishment, and unlike the American way where your life is screwed as a result after the punishment has been dealt many European countries consider y

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The doctor in question was allowed by the professional body to continue practising. The body is there not to punish, but to ensure that when mistakes are made they are corrected and the doctor doesn't repeat them. That's the truth.

      It is of course fine for Google to report that. But it's not okay to report false information. Companies that provide information about people, such as credit rating agencies, are strictly regulated in the EU and have a duty to provide accurate information. Our data protection law

    • https://www.ratemds.com/ [ratemds.com] is far better than Yelp. Looks like they don't operate in Europe.

      They should.

    • So Yelp is allowed to keep going

      An excellent bowl of blood pudding is worth more than your life. You have to choose your battles carefully.

  • Technology is hard. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:31PM (#57999672)

    Now they will have to bring down thousands of pages: that is what will happen, in my view. There is a medical disciplinary panel but Google have been the judge until now. They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said.

    It sounds like Van Lynden doesn't know how the internet works. Google can't "take down" anything. All it can do is remove references from its search results. I would love to hear an explanation for the technical aspects of how this would be done. Are Google's algorithms really that good that they can "de-list" certain websites but only for very specific search terms? What happens when/if this doctor gets put on the naughty list again? Are they required to de-list the next blog that people decide to comment on? This is very interesting from both a "free speech" (and yes, I realize this isn't a US story) and from a technical perspective.

    • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:42PM (#57999716)

      "It sounds like Van Lynden doesn't know how the internet works. Google can't "take down" anything. All it can do is remove references from its search results."

      And in 2019, getting google to remove references is pretty effective at removing something from the internet. Sure its there, but instead of being 3 clicks away from anyone who can spell your name its now in a disused lavatory in the basement with a sign on the door saying 'beware of the leopard'... or bing... but i repeat myself. :p

    • by Scarletdown ( 886459 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:42PM (#57999720) Journal

      Even if Google complies, it is doubtful that DDG or any of the other search engines will do so.

      • by ron_ivi ( 607351 ) <sdotno AT cheapcomplexdevices DOT com> on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @04:02AM (#58000446)
        DDG gets at least some of their results indirectly from Google.

        DuckDuckGo's sources include Yahoo(now Oath) and Bing. ( https://duck.co/help/results/s... [duck.co] ).

        And Yahoo gets their results from google. ( https://searchengineland.com/y... [searchengineland.com] )

        And Bing gets results from google ( https://www.wired.com/2011/02/... [wired.com] )

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

        Even if Google complies, it is doubtful that DDG or any of the other search engines will do so.

        The world's second most popular search engine is Bing. It has a 4% market share ... on a work day where people don't change defaults on their work computers.

        If Google removes something, there's a good chance of a population forgetting it existed.

      • True. However, if DDG or anyone else gets an appreciable amount of the search market, they'll be asked to comply as well.

        The Right to be Forgotten might sound like a stupid bit of legislation made by people who don't understand the Internet. It might be those things, but it's actually pretty limited in scope, and understands that it's not a complete solution. If you want to research this doctor, it doesn't stop you from doing so. However, if you are like 99% of people on the planet and just 'google' stuff b

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      It sounds like Van Lynden doesn't know how the internet works. Google can't "take down" anything.

      Actually it sounds like you don't know how the internet works. The theory and the practice are two different things. Just because something exists on the internet doesn't mean it won't fade into irrelevance when becoming delisted. The exception are items of continued interest and controversy. E.g. Delist The Pirate Bay from Google and after a few good years it would drop off the face of the earth, however if you keep talking about it in the media, then it would survive.

      Mind you continuing to talk about some

  • by JoshuaZ ( 1134087 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:33PM (#57999678) Homepage
    This is a really good example of why the "right to be forgotten" idea is a really bad idea. Aside from issues of free speech, in any reasonable context, patients should have a right to know what problems or potential issues a doctor they have has had. One doesn't even need an American style strong free speech norm to see that this should be unacceptable.
    • by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:45PM (#57999730) Homepage Journal

      At the same time, people who have been accused of one thing and subsequently "convicted" on a lesser count (or nothing at all) deserve to have the original charge properly tagged with the resolution of the case. A mere retraction after the fact is insufficient. It needs to be in plain view from the moment the original complaint is referenced.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You know what would be a better resolution? If a search for your name points to the conviction of your prosecutor for misconduct. There's virtually no actual punishment of prosecutors ever for anything. Being accused and cleared is one thing. Knowing that the whole "well, we all know he was probably guilty but they couldn't prove it" stems precisely because prosecutors are allowed such zealous overreach without consequence is what's truly sickening.

      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @12:15AM (#57999998)

        At the same time, people who have been accused of one thing and subsequently "convicted" on a lesser count (or nothing at all) deserve to have the original charge properly tagged with the resolution of the case.

        Why should that be the responsibility of a search engine?

        • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

          It shouldn't, but that's the way the EU decided to implement it.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @05:25AM (#58000650) Homepage Journal

          Why should that be the responsibility of a search engine?

          Because the search engine is acting as an agent providing information about people, which is regulated by data protection laws.

          This problem was actually recognized back in the 80s when such laws first appeared. Databases often contained errors and people tended to trust the computer far too much, so the right to have corrections made was introduced and limits placed on the use of such data.

          Imagine if a credit reference agency had a massive black mark on your file that was a mistake. You would want it corrected, right?

          • by stdarg ( 456557 )

            Imagine if a credit reference agency had a massive black mark on your file that was a mistake. You would want it corrected, right?

            I would agree with that, but according to the article:

            The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings.

            So it's not about an outright error, it's that the data was presented in a way that implied something that may or may not be accurate.

            Rather than your straightforward example of an error on a credit report, it would be more like if someone had a website listing businessmen who had declared bankruptcy on some projects, and suggesting that they are bad at business. Now in reality occasionally bankruptcy is normal, that's why we have bankruptcy laws. So are

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              What they are saying is that the fact that the web site is called "blacklisted doctors" and has that right at the top is rather misleading, given that she is on it but not blacklisted. So while it contains some factually accurate (if now out of date) information, the overall effect is very misleading.

          • Imagine if a credit reference agency had a massive black mark on your file that was a mistake. You would want it corrected, right?

            Sure I would. Unfortunately I have to go in person to get my free credit report because identity thieves have been so successful at stealing my identity that even over the phone they won't believe I am who I say I am. Hopefully when I do finally go in they will accept my original BC and SSN as identity, I still have both amazingly. *knockonwood*

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      Apparently the tribunal didn't agree. "The right to privacy is more important than for the public to find information on the judgment of a medical board"

      • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @11:47PM (#57999920)

        Apparently the tribunal didn't agree. "The right to privacy is more important than for the public to find information on the judgment of a medical board"

        Speaking as an American - I'd love to see a poll showing where European citizens fall on that question. I have a hard time believing they'd agree with the tribunal; but perhaps I just don't understand the average European.

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          ... but perhaps I just don't understand the average European.

          I think not. I have many European friends, and I am occasionally surprised by their lack of concern about individual rights that are taken for granted in America. They are way more willing to accept censorship to suppress "hate speech", burqa bans, etc.

          With such a wide gap in perspectives, conversations are almost pointless, so I just try to avoid talking about these issues with Europeans. Even with Americans, before discussing individual rights, I aways ask "What do you think of motorcycle helmet laws?"

          • They are way more willing to accept censorship to suppress "hate speech", burqa bans, etc.

            The events of World War II may have had a tiny impact on this... sure, Americans also fought in the war, but the American population as a whole had it pretty good (relatively speaking).

            • by Jarwulf ( 530523 )
              So you're saying the enjoyed their experiences under the Nazis and Communists during the war and want to repeat it?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Europe has a different concept of freedom to the US.

          The US is very much focused on freedom from interference. The government can't stop you doing things. In Europe we have that too, but we also consider to right to certain things to be essential to be free as well. For example, someone without any education has effectively had their freedom severely limited because it's difficult for them to function and find happiness in the modern world, so education is a human right here and the government has a responsi

    • by Torvac ( 691504 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @02:45AM (#58000318)
      how is wrong data, fake/old news and lies freedom of speech?

      there are examples where people have been acquitted but still appear as murderers/rapist etc. in old articles and ofc in google results.

      "right to be forgotten" is shit, a duty and obligation to be correct should be there.

      a general right to be forgotten just makes it possible to get away with murder depending on your personal ressources.

      • a general right to be forgotten just makes it possible to get away with murder depending on your personal ressources.
        No, you don't get away with murder. You get punished with 30 years or more jail time.
        You probably get released after 20 years because of good conduct.
        And 10 years after you left jail: your sentence is removed from public archives This is the right to be forgotten. And in front of the law is no difference if you stole as a teenager in a shopping mall or killed as an adult your neighbour. Can't

    • The problem with your reasoning is that it effectively removes any possibility of the wrongdoer learning from the experience and moving on with their life. What good is the sanction if it never ends? For all we know, she did fuck up but also she did learn her lesson and is now a wonderful surgeon. Yes, it _may_ not be the case, but a search engine isn't the proper place to keep track of these things.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @04:32AM (#58000504)

      How about this. Someone accuses you of sexual assault. It's proven to be false and you're cleared of all charges, but now, when you Google your name, details of your sexual assault accusation show up.

      Right to be forgotten lets you remove that because you're innocent. But the Court of Google means you're a sexual predator forever.

      Is that fair?

      How about something else - you get arrested for pot smoking when you're 17. When you turn 18, your record gets wiped. But the Court of Google indexed that so now everyone thinks you're a pothead because you got arrested, even though legally you're in the clear, and even worse, your record was actually expunged upon turning 18. But Google and the Internet doesn't care.

      Of course, no one would notice - a criminal background check will reveal nothing of either situation - the first was cleared, the second was expunged. But now someone does a simple Google and everyone is suddenly looking at you funny, thinking you're a pothead and sexual predator and why aren't you fired yet.

      People lose jobs because of their social media postings, which is why it's generally a good idea to go through what you post and clean it up. But while you can clean up your social media, you can't clean up what Google and the Internet have heard about you, even if it's no longer true. Imagine being denied a job just because of something you were accused of, but didn't do. Even a court of law says you didn't go it. But just because you allegedly did it, you did it.

    • by N1AK ( 864906 )
      I'm not sure on the right to be forgotten but you are missing it's claimed primary purpose.

      In America some content is illegal. Individual Americans may or may not agree with those laws but they exist and a content provider needs to adhere to them. In America's case because it is such a large market and so much of the infrastructure is based there or run by companies under that jurisdiction it means that the vast majority of casually find-able content conforms to American law. In Europe that isn't necessa
      • by stdarg ( 456557 )

        The above isn't intended to explain this individual cases merits; but if the information this site includes was judged to be inaccurate or misleading then this isn't as simple as European vs American free speech.

        Well in fact in this case "The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people"

        Try living in American jurisdiction and posting false information about medical products or service providers who are also in the US and see how long your right to free speech protects you from considerable fines or even criminal charges.

        I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure opinion is protected in the US, so if you posted somewhere, "Doctor XYZ is horrible (subjective) because he did ABC (accurate) so nobody should see him (subjective)" you'd be fine, but if you posted "Doctor XYZ is horrible (subjective) becau

  • I'm not sure why anyone thinks they have a right to be forgotten, especially when other people have a right to know.
  • by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @10:35PM (#57999688)

    This is an exercise of the right to correct information, not of "the right to be forgotten". The claims are against websites that publish the incorrect information about the disciplinary action that is no longer valid. It is the same as a sentence which has been revoked is removed from your criminal record.

    • Somehow it wasn't possible, apparently, to have sites reporting the original, 'full' suspension, to be 'more accurate', lead with the current 'conditional suspension', being more accurate...

      Hey, my first concern was that this would result in factual content being removed, insulating people from the genuine and predictable consequences of their actions. Is that happening here? At first glance, it seems not. But is this order going to force removal of all the original charges and/or disciplinary actions?

  • That is, the name of this surgeon?

    I consider 'right to be forgotten' in the same line as 'right to not be offended'. I.E., a 'right' that doesn't exist.

    • I tried searching for this (on Google, first, before I had a duh moment, then on Duck Duck Go). All of the news stories seem to be based on a single Dutch news story with no additional information. Searching for Dutch court dockets is apparently hard when you don't speak Dutch.

    • I found the case documents [rechtspraak.nl] at the Dutch court website, but believe it or not they are all anonymized!

    • by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @11:13PM (#57999818)

      OK, got it. All this Dutch is killing me! According to this Dutch website [sin-nl.org], the doctor's name is Rita Kappel and the black list in question is here [zwartelijstartsen.nl].

      • Great work! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by robbak ( 775424 )

        Now we hope this information gets more widely spread.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

          Why? You feel like fucking up someone's life over 3rd party opinion?

          Hey everyone robbak one blew off a horse, we need to spread this widely. The fact that it's not real shouldn't stop us from spreading this news! The fact that the formal department of management of horse erectile function declares that he hasn't blown off a horse shouldn't stop us from spreading this news!

          That's what you're saying right?

          • by stdarg ( 456557 )

            That's incorrect, the analog here would be that you blew a horse, but you're listed on a website called "blacklisted veterinarians" with an accurate accounting of what you had done and when you did it. But you are not actually banned from continuing your veterinary practice, so a judge decides that "blacklisted" is not a fair title.

            So the question is, should people be able to find out that you blew a horse one time, and is the title of the website really what is dissuading people from seeing you or is it th

      • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @11:52PM (#57999932)

        So Dr. Rita Kappel was initially disciplined and her right to practice was suspended because of her postoperative care of a patient - but then her disciplinary action was altered to allow her to continue to practice. However the overall disciplinary action remains intact and on her record.

        Do I have those facts regarding Dr. Rita Kappel correct?

        • by robbak ( 775424 ) on Monday January 21, 2019 @11:57PM (#57999940) Homepage

          Sounds about right. Now she wants to restrict people accessing that information, so they can't make an informed decision about her competence before choosing to be operated on by her.

          • by zmooc ( 33175 ) <zmooc@zmo o c . n et> on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @08:39AM (#58001106) Homepage

            That's not true. There's a proper official white list (The BIG register) for all medical people in the Netherlands (and probably elsewhere too) that is specifically meant as a public register for these kinds of things; if you search for her, you will find a clear annotation describing what happened. She's not restricting people from accessing that information at all, she's merely requesting a doctor-shaming black list from removing her. What she's doing in this case is perfectly right, just and legal.

            Also note that she has made _one_ mistake. She does not seem to be an incompetent doctor with a history of incidents. Everybody makes mistakes. That's not sufficient to end up on such a list for the rest of your live at all. We'd probably not have any doctors left if that's how we did things...

        • OOOH, you guys are so busted, the EU internet cops are going to be on you like Hans Brinker on a silver skate! You're getting a boot up the ass - a wooden boot, of course.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Indeed that seems to be correct. It appears that the site in question has been updated now so this specific case is somewhat moot, but the general principal stands.

        • Do I have those facts regarding Dr. Rita Kappel correct?

          Indeed, you do seem to have those facts right about Rita Kappel and her being disciplined for her postoperative care of a patient. Bravo!

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @02:05AM (#58000264) Homepage

        The story being, basically a weekend plastic surgeon that uses a rented theatre and cheap gig economy nurses in surgery, did a quick dirty, boobie deflation job. After sending the gig economy cheap surgery team home, who are too expensive and leaving the victim in the care of general nurse after the weekend surgeon wandered off counting the profits. Well the victim was not quite sealed up and was leaking, a lot, rather than put together a proper surgical team. The doctor sort of botched one up with the nurses available to get the victim done with as fast as possible, costing the surgeon money now and well, quite the awkward mess, all those amateurs in a room and after lots of bleeding and mess an hour and a half latter the patient sealed up.

        Going in for surgery, go with a surgeon who works in a real hospital and where you will have doctors and nurses of all sorts on tap. Go to a weekend hacker that rents an surgery by the hour and brings on gig economy party time surgical 'er' specialists, and is looking to make as much profit as possible, as in spend as little as possible and push the gig economy workers out the surgery door as fast as possible.

        When going in for surgery, ask which hospital and full time staff, don't go to the rental surgery and the gig economy workers, it's cheaper for a reason. That doctors special gig is https://www.drkappel.nl/ [drkappel.nl] and https://www.drkappel.nl/ [drkappel.nl], when it comes to inflato boobies she works the flip side, deflation. Runs a whole 'Institute' of medical practices web site (I'll bet it wants goggle search to remember that), when in reality a surgeon on the cheap, rented surgery and gig economy surgical staff the cheapest available, to maximise profits and good luck for the victims.

        Most people going to a surgery would expect the doctor and the surgical team to know each other well and be practised working together so as not to make mistakes and during and post surgery, a lot of resources accessible for problems, not to be left in the lurch, bleeding out.

      • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @04:41AM (#58000532)
        https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]

        Look , TL;DR : you are basically a proponent of marking any people having been caught adulterous with a red brand on their forehead. This is exactly what you want. Before google and other search engine we all enjoyed a right to be forgotten, in other word a right to be able to correct errors, and become better. If you brand people forever , you effectively destroy their life. Maybe you are an american ? That would explain it, US society seem good on punitive action but not so much on rehabilitation, or prevention.
      • OK, got it. All this Dutch is killing me! According to this Dutch website [sin-nl.org], the doctor's name is Rita Kappel and the black list in question is here [zwartelijstartsen.nl].

        You missed something very important about this Dutch website [sin-nl.org],

        According to this article the judge himself is on a blacklist of this site due to previous ruling in favor of plastic surgeons, there is a conflict of interest here.

        The (online) blacklist itself is tested by law and allowed.

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

      This article has more detail: https://www.villamedia.nl/arti... [villamedia.nl]

      Her 'lawyer' (speciality in bad media disappearance consulting) had the case sealed and it remained unpublished until the decision was final. Even the "personal information authority" for the country does not agree with the surgeon or the judge since the surgeon still isn't fully cleared from her prior malpractice.

    • If there is a law explicitly stating that there is "a right to be forgotten", then that right exists.
      Just in the same way as you have the right to own land.

    • I consider 'right to be forgotten' in the same line as 'right to not be offended'. I.E., a 'right' that doesn't exist.

      That's because you subscribe to the American style of court by public opinion. In Europe there's more of a philosophy that if someone has done the crime and done the time and been deemed fit to return to society then they should be considered as equal.

  • This "bring down thousands of pages" line is a shot at bullshiting ignorant Americans (and maybe Brits too) - cause Netherlands is a civil law country. [wikipedia.org]

    As such, one ruling of a court is nothing but one ruling by that court.
    It changes no laws, nor does it affect other cases anywhere in the land. Or the world.
    A precedent will get you no more than a cup of coffee. Provided you have the money to pay for it.

    See... Most of the world DOES NOT use a legal system created for illiterate lords who've inherited their la

    • Most of the world thinks that's kinda stupid.

      Yeah, we have a taste of that in Louisiana [wikipedia.org].

      That must be why it's a state with such a high reputation for the rule of law.

      • If you'd read the link you provided you'd notice that the Louisiana "civil law" is akin to fruit juice with "at least 5% real fruit".

        The starting paragraph would have done the trick.

        Louisiana's criminal law largely rests on American common law.
        Louisiana's administrative law is generally similar to the administrative law of the U.S. federal government and other U.S. states.
        Louisiana's procedural law is generally in line with that of other U.S. states, which in turn is generally based on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

        Also, this:

        One often-cited distinction is that while common law courts are bound by stare decisis and tend to rule based on precedents, judges in Louisiana rule based on their own interpretation of the law.[22] This distinction is not absolute, though. Civil law has its own respect for established precedent, the doctrine of jurisprudence constante. But the Louisiana Supreme Court notes the principal difference between the two legal doctrines: a single court decision can provide sufficient foundation for stare decisis, however, "a series of adjudicated cases, all in accord, form the basis for jurisprudence constante."[23] Moreover, Louisiana Courts of Appeals have explicitly noted that jurisprudence constante is merely a secondary source of law, which cannot be authoritative and does not rise to the level of stare decisis.[24]

        I.e. In Louisiana they use of SOME aspects of civil law - but in a court which finds and treats common law as superior.
        Basically, worst parts of both systems.

  • "When the own the information, they can bend it all they want" - John Mayer, "Waiting on the world to change"

    Someone took ownership of this information certainly.

    IMO, patients ought to know about professional achievements or sanctions. Just like I wanna know a potential hire's criminal record. Because it directly impacts me.

    • IMO, patients ought to know about professional achievements or sanctions.

      So why bother having a medical registration system if you're going by court of public opinion?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      And to be clear, the tribunal is saying that patients can know about this. What they are concerned about is them knowing the truth, not some old and outdated information that is no longer accurate.

      As for a potential employee's criminal record, in Europe you have a right to know some of it. Convictions that are considered "spent" do not have to be declared. Serious crimes, or crimes for which the time limit has not run out (e.g. they are on probation) must be declared.

  • Since anything that somebody doesn't like can be removed from visibility, if for some reason it is found to be politically incorrect or offensive to somebody.

    If history can be revised by a court whose decision is based entirely on moral values at the time and not upon what *actually* occured, there is absolutely no point to teaching it to anyone.

    And who gets to decide what is "history worthy" and what is not?

    Let future generations decide what is important for them to remember and what is not... we ha

  • If performing a google search on the doctor yields the court's ruling, does that violate the ruling? Or is this some kind a secret ruling nobody can talk about but somehow they are supposed to know it so they can obey it?

    Or is there going to be a new website - here is a list of people who won "right to be forgotten" cases, and here are all their case details you're not supposed to link to?

  • Google provides a very clear and useful hint when it has removed results due to this "right to be forgotten" law. This is when you fire up the VPN to, say, the US and repeat the search, then do a diff between the results to find the interesting ones.

    • Google provides a very clear and useful hint when it has removed results due to this "right to be forgotten" law. This is when you fire up the VPN to, say, the US and repeat the search, then do a diff between the results to find the interesting ones.

      Which is an extra step most people won't know to take and so a incompetent doctor is allowed to continue incompetently treating people because the right to privacy trumps a patient's well being.

      • If you can't be assed to take an extra step for your health and consider first results without cross references and cross checking sufficient to form an opinion ...

        Sorry, but I am no proponent of an internet with handrails for the mentally handicapped.

  • They have decided whether to take a page down -- and why do they have that position?" Van Lynden said.

    Because (political biases excepted) they are literally a search engine that just links to what people publish and talk about.

    And strangely enough, people publish and talk about medical professionals being disciplined.

  • In Soviet EU, history book have looseleaf pages! Is great accomplishment of Brussels Politburo!

  • This win is a pyrrhic victory because it doesn't cover the content of the websites themselves, it simply removes them from one search engine. People could always choose to visit the most commonly used review sites like Angie's List or Yelp. In the US, consumers are protected by law against corporate backlash when using these sites to leave negative reviews. The old adage, "You cannot please everyone" applies. It sucks when some up tight consumer is upset because he or she wasn't given a happy ending and wri

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!

Working...