Google's questionnaire response to Article 29 Working Party(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
Google's questionnaire response to Article 29 Working Party
http://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M/edit
5 comments
> I can certainly understand things like nude photos, sex tapes, etc. but we already have legal means of dealing with those examples. Can someone convince me why this law is necessary and in the public interest?
No, we don't.
Not only is it extremely expensive to go in court to have such a judgement for such affair, but it is also extremely complex as you are dealing with international laws and that most countries will not enforce a judgment made by another one for such "superficial" topics. And on top of that, you can add the Streisand effect.
Moreover, you still have the right to access the information, it will just not be shown by the popular search engines, as is the vast majority of the web.
This law is there to protect those that get a bad press on the web for things they already redeem themselves, have reach the prescription delay (e.g.: mistakes you did while you were minor) or that suffer from a side effect of some unrelated topic.
If you look at the questionnaire, it is long and complex enough to prevent most of abusive uses as it is the current case with the DCMA takedown idiocy. Plus the process is quite long (currently several weeks, or months) before a request is validated to prevent some scandale to be obfuscated that way.
No, we don't.
Not only is it extremely expensive to go in court to have such a judgement for such affair, but it is also extremely complex as you are dealing with international laws and that most countries will not enforce a judgment made by another one for such "superficial" topics. And on top of that, you can add the Streisand effect.
Moreover, you still have the right to access the information, it will just not be shown by the popular search engines, as is the vast majority of the web.
This law is there to protect those that get a bad press on the web for things they already redeem themselves, have reach the prescription delay (e.g.: mistakes you did while you were minor) or that suffer from a side effect of some unrelated topic.
If you look at the questionnaire, it is long and complex enough to prevent most of abusive uses as it is the current case with the DCMA takedown idiocy. Plus the process is quite long (currently several weeks, or months) before a request is validated to prevent some scandale to be obfuscated that way.
>No, we don't.
You're right. I think the standard way of dealing of them here is to hire a lawyer to file a copyright on the images or video and DMCA the host, which only works if the person depicted is legally the owner of the material (like sexting selfies.) Otherwise, people file a case against the owner of the image for harassment or hacking (or something in that vein) and get a judge to issue a court order to take it down as part of a possible crime.
It's a pretty awful and expensive state of affairs (at least in the US.) The larger question is what this "right to be forgotten" attempts to answer in a more general sense, which is whether you should be able to force people to take these things down at all. I tend to say no. I don't think sexuality should differentiate your right to distribute content from any other reason, so, sadly, I think the current state of US law is mostly a good one.
I think that if you don't have a right to be forgotten, you also shouldn't have a right for your sex tape to be forgotten.
You're right. I think the standard way of dealing of them here is to hire a lawyer to file a copyright on the images or video and DMCA the host, which only works if the person depicted is legally the owner of the material (like sexting selfies.) Otherwise, people file a case against the owner of the image for harassment or hacking (or something in that vein) and get a judge to issue a court order to take it down as part of a possible crime.
It's a pretty awful and expensive state of affairs (at least in the US.) The larger question is what this "right to be forgotten" attempts to answer in a more general sense, which is whether you should be able to force people to take these things down at all. I tend to say no. I don't think sexuality should differentiate your right to distribute content from any other reason, so, sadly, I think the current state of US law is mostly a good one.
I think that if you don't have a right to be forgotten, you also shouldn't have a right for your sex tape to be forgotten.
Look at it like this:
Suppose you made a comment on an internet forum that people got very upset about but it turns out there is no edit button so you can't change it. Would that piss you off? Would it make you feel like you are being misunderstood and therefore treated wrongly.
Someone notices that the thread has grown and decides to make a story out of it. They pick your statement because it triggered the most "feelings". You get the regular inflammatory headline and more people get upset. Sprinkle some twitter on it and some tv news might pick it up.
Now, suppose there was a vote on that forum to decide if there should be an edit button or not. Would you vote 'no' to preserve others right to information? Or would you click edit in an effort to keep people on subject?
Suppose you made a comment on an internet forum that people got very upset about but it turns out there is no edit button so you can't change it. Would that piss you off? Would it make you feel like you are being misunderstood and therefore treated wrongly.
Someone notices that the thread has grown and decides to make a story out of it. They pick your statement because it triggered the most "feelings". You get the regular inflammatory headline and more people get upset. Sprinkle some twitter on it and some tv news might pick it up.
Now, suppose there was a vote on that forum to decide if there should be an edit button or not. Would you vote 'no' to preserve others right to information? Or would you click edit in an effort to keep people on subject?
You made the comment. People might disagree with your views - such is life.
If the comment is picked up by the news - again, you said it. Don't publish things to your name you aren't comfortable having everyone in the world know.
However, if what you wrote is being misquoted or taken out of context, it likely would be libel, which already is illegal.
If the comment is picked up by the news - again, you said it. Don't publish things to your name you aren't comfortable having everyone in the world know.
However, if what you wrote is being misquoted or taken out of context, it likely would be libel, which already is illegal.
Information flow is similar to an electric current. Current flowing through light bulbs and motors does useful things for us...but you want some resistance to that current. If you have no resistance, things break or burst into flames.
It's similar for information flow. Information flow does great things, but without resistance it can cause serious damage.
The internet greatly lowered the resistance. Search engines lowered it even more. I fear that if we do not find some way to increase the resistance, the problem will be addressed at the other end by changing the laws about what goes in the public record.
For instance, maybe arrests will no longer go into the public record--only convictions. That way, people who are arrested and later released due to lack of evidence don't have the arrest following them around. (Bad things make a bigger impression than good things...when someone finds out you were arrested, and then finds out you were let go, the latter usually won't negate the prejudice they have toward you from the former).
It's similar for information flow. Information flow does great things, but without resistance it can cause serious damage.
The internet greatly lowered the resistance. Search engines lowered it even more. I fear that if we do not find some way to increase the resistance, the problem will be addressed at the other end by changing the laws about what goes in the public record.
For instance, maybe arrests will no longer go into the public record--only convictions. That way, people who are arrested and later released due to lack of evidence don't have the arrest following them around. (Bad things make a bigger impression than good things...when someone finds out you were arrested, and then finds out you were let go, the latter usually won't negate the prejudice they have toward you from the former).
It is absolutely critical to a civil justice system in a democratic society that police department activities (including arrests) are a matter of public record. Operational details are not necessary, but at the very least the police have to be obligated to report that they have arrested someone and why. If not, you have a secret police department and secret arrests.
In my town, only convictions and lawsuits show up if you search someone by name in the court record system. However, you can go to the police department and ask for the daily activity log, which indicates who has been arrested, where, when, and on what charge. The newspaper does this every day, and publishes demographic information but not names.
Do you really want people disappearing with no one taking responsibility or giving an explanation? No, thanks. I don't need my local police department turning into the Stasi.
In my town, only convictions and lawsuits show up if you search someone by name in the court record system. However, you can go to the police department and ask for the daily activity log, which indicates who has been arrested, where, when, and on what charge. The newspaper does this every day, and publishes demographic information but not names.
Do you really want people disappearing with no one taking responsibility or giving an explanation? No, thanks. I don't need my local police department turning into the Stasi.
> Do you really want people disappearing with no one taking responsibility or giving an explanation?
Of course not. That's why I said that I fear the reduction of the public record.
However, consider that 30% of American males are arrested at least once by age 23 [1], or maybe that should be 40% [2]. It's a little confusing because both numbers come from studies that analyzed the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and looked at arrests from 18-23, and both studies are by the same group of authors. WTF? Anyway, apparently a lot of American males have been arrested (and this is excluding arrests for minor traffic violations).
It only takes losing one job due to an arrest to turn someone into a "yes" voter for an initiative to remove arrest records from the public record, and with so many people having an arrest on their record, there could be a lot of those "yes" voters.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/nearly-a-third-of-ameri...
[2] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-01/uosc-sho01031...
Of course not. That's why I said that I fear the reduction of the public record.
However, consider that 30% of American males are arrested at least once by age 23 [1], or maybe that should be 40% [2]. It's a little confusing because both numbers come from studies that analyzed the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 and looked at arrests from 18-23, and both studies are by the same group of authors. WTF? Anyway, apparently a lot of American males have been arrested (and this is excluding arrests for minor traffic violations).
It only takes losing one job due to an arrest to turn someone into a "yes" voter for an initiative to remove arrest records from the public record, and with so many people having an arrest on their record, there could be a lot of those "yes" voters.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/us/nearly-a-third-of-ameri...
[2] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-01/uosc-sho01031...
Chinese censorship exists to protect the state.
EU right to be forgotten protects the individual.
That's a pretty huge difference.
That's a pretty huge difference.
I agree the parallel isn't exact, but it still represents the state limiting the dissemination of information. I would rather hear your opinion about the substance of the law rather than the weakest part of my statement.
So it's a good ol' ends justify the means argument.
That certainly never turns out badly ...
I didn't make any argument
Uh?
This is surely an argument.
You are arguing that using the same means (censorship) to achieve two different end goals (protecting the individual, protecting the state), are very different situations. You imply that they should be looked at very differently.
If you don't want it to be an argument, simply state the facts, and remove, among other things the "that's a pretty huge difference" statement.
This is surely an argument.
You are arguing that using the same means (censorship) to achieve two different end goals (protecting the individual, protecting the state), are very different situations. You imply that they should be looked at very differently.
If you don't want it to be an argument, simply state the facts, and remove, among other things the "that's a pretty huge difference" statement.
I find that downvote really funny.
> The parellels to Chinese censorship
We really need a new Godwin.
Comparing this law (remove a small number of very specific search results or face a fine) to Chinese censorship (great firewall; execution and torture and imprisonment for dissidents) is pretty offensive.
We really need a new Godwin.
Comparing this law (remove a small number of very specific search results or face a fine) to Chinese censorship (great firewall; execution and torture and imprisonment for dissidents) is pretty offensive.
Good lord, would people please stop taking the weakest part of my statement? Let's discuss the substance of this law.
When I search for a particular person's name; on a European server; and that person has asked for information to be de-linked; and the search engine agrees that the information is no longer relevant and the person is not in the public eye and etc; then some URLs won't be returned for some particular search terms.
To compare that to Chinese oppression (you get shot in the head and your family gets a bill for the bullet) is perverse.
To compare that to Chinese oppression (you get shot in the head and your family gets a bill for the bullet) is perverse.
> the search engine agrees that the information is no longer relevant and the person is not in the public eye
Unless I am mistaken, there is no "agreement". This law functions like the DMCA: when Google gets a valid request, the must remove the specified results and fight the removal from this position, if they choose to.
> To compare that to Chinese oppression (you get shot in the head and your family gets a bill for the bullet) is perverse.
"Chinese oppression" is not an all-or-nothing thing. Comparing this to aspects of Chinese oppression may not be fair and may be calculated to provoke an emotional response, but it is not equivocating it to all the oppressive actions the Chinese regime is responsible for.
Unless I am mistaken, there is no "agreement". This law functions like the DMCA: when Google gets a valid request, the must remove the specified results and fight the removal from this position, if they choose to.
> To compare that to Chinese oppression (you get shot in the head and your family gets a bill for the bullet) is perverse.
"Chinese oppression" is not an all-or-nothing thing. Comparing this to aspects of Chinese oppression may not be fair and may be calculated to provoke an emotional response, but it is not equivocating it to all the oppressive actions the Chinese regime is responsible for.
Where did you get the impression that this is like the DMCA and all requests must be acted on?
In all the commentary I've seen so far that's been one of the complaints: that companies have this duty to assess whether the information is no longer relevant or whether the person is in the public eye.
In all the commentary I've seen so far that's been one of the complaints: that companies have this duty to assess whether the information is no longer relevant or whether the person is in the public eye.
I just don't get this law. It's so shortsighted and really will only benefit the rich elite who can hire lawyers to enforce it.
Think about it. If a common joe asks to have a link removed, but google doesn't do it, what can he do? He has to hire a lawyer to get it removed.
So, the only people that can afford this process are the rich elite. And then you have the rich elite essentially censoring the internet on stuff they don't want you to know about.
It just doesn't make any sense at all.
Think about it. If a common joe asks to have a link removed, but google doesn't do it, what can he do? He has to hire a lawyer to get it removed.
So, the only people that can afford this process are the rich elite. And then you have the rich elite essentially censoring the internet on stuff they don't want you to know about.
It just doesn't make any sense at all.
They could make the argument that Google (and other search engines) essentially re-publish information so it's appropriate to make them responsible.
I think that point of view is one that many in the tech community don't share. We see it as collating results rather than publishing information.
That difference of viewpoint is very significant when you think about it.
I think that point of view is one that many in the tech community don't share. We see it as collating results rather than publishing information.
That difference of viewpoint is very significant when you think about it.
It's interesting that they have already received 91000 removal requests involving more than 320 000 urls.
53% of these have been removed, this is having a big impact...
53% of these have been removed, this is having a big impact...
Note also that the URLs themselves are not removed from the search corpus; instead, they are elided from results when they are matches for a search with a particular name in them. The URLs themselves are still eligible to be returned in response to queries that don't include the specific name.
Opportunity to resolve the public interest for SEO guys? What did they call it in High School yearbooks, the superlatives page? I was trying to remember who are the "litigious bastards" but Google and Urban Dictionary remembered it for me...
There was an effort (I can't find the link) to create a catalog of all of the links and terms that it was requested for Google to forget. Some folks (not me, but some folks I'm sure) could spend a long time coming up with the best search terms for the most egregious "bad examples" of people demanding to be forgotten in this way, how hard could it be to make sure they show up in the top results? :)
There was an effort (I can't find the link) to create a catalog of all of the links and terms that it was requested for Google to forget. Some folks (not me, but some folks I'm sure) could spend a long time coming up with the best search terms for the most egregious "bad examples" of people demanding to be forgotten in this way, how hard could it be to make sure they show up in the top results? :)
Not really. Google returns millions of results for every search. 320,000 urls isn't a lot and the number of people that were searching for this stuff and were effected is probably quite low.
It depends on each url popularity, I doubt any of the requests deals with a ressource you would find on the 500 th page of a search result.
EU citizens will have the search results censored but the rest of the world will not, nor will any European who is mildly tech savvy. How is this not useless whack-a-mole?
As the documents states:
"Fewer than 5% of European users use google.com, and we think travelers are a significant portion of those."
So this affects pretty much all europeans.
So this affects pretty much all europeans.
Do you believe that most Europeans won't know that their search results are being censored? Or that they won't care?
Or maybe that they agree with the intentions of that law.
I certainly don't its a "pious" law written by people with zero grasp of reality - the same ones that gave us the cookie law.
My point is that even if you agree with the intentions of the law it will not prevent Europeans from finding the truth if they want it.
But that's not what the law aims for either. It's just supposed to make finding those results harder, so that you don't accidentally stumble upon them, but have to actually search for them.
???
It's exactly the opposite
If you actually search for them, you get nothing.
If you stumble around, you may find them.
Yes?
So what if it's useless whack-a-mole?
It's compliant with an EU ruling. It'll keep a few people happy where those people used to think they were the subjects of harassment before. That will stop those people using the police for this stuff. (Front line police in England spend maybe half their time dealing with online harassment, bullying, threats, trolling, etc).
It's compliant with an EU ruling. It'll keep a few people happy where those people used to think they were the subjects of harassment before. That will stop those people using the police for this stuff. (Front line police in England spend maybe half their time dealing with online harassment, bullying, threats, trolling, etc).
[deleted]
They call it a "right to be forgotten," but guess what, I have a right to information (speech, press, etc.) that I think supercedes this supposed right which I've never heard of before this law. People need to learn to live with their mistakes and be more careful about their actions. If a person (to cite the specific example commonly mentioned) went into bankruptcy due to economic issues, poor investment or even 'bad luck' then that is a matter of legal proceedings and should be public record.
I can certainly understand things like nude photos, sex tapes, etc. but we already have legal means of dealing with those examples. Can someone convince me why this law is necessary and in the public interest?
Edit: Took out statement about Chinese censorship because people were attacking that rather than the substance of THIS law.