http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27388289

To the FAIL boat!

Why fail? Sounds good to me. If there is incorrect or private information about me I want it removed not only from the site where it was illegally published by also from search engine caches etc.



Sent from my Nokia Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk

That I'm totally behind, but...



http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... ch-results

...that's something else entirely. What follows isn't a dig at you by the way...

We're talking about having entire search results removed that, apart from being one hell of a faff (Google or not, plus you have to consider court time and costs), will adversely affect the whole web. And I mean what happens in countries outside the EU, or even just with someone using a proxy? Will that be Google's fault too? And Google aren't in charge of the web, much as they'd like to be.

Doing research? Sorry, that article you're after won't show up in a search because someone didn't like having their name mentioned somewhere on that page.



Who the hell gets to decide on that? Some judge who hasn't the first clue about how the web works? Or those nice people at GCHQ who could claim 'national security' and not have to give public evidence?

So if I was called John Smith and asked Google to remove all links to me – “John Smith” how would they differentiate me v any other John Smith if I do a Google Search “John Smith”

If I was Google I would get my Staff to change their names by Deed Poll to European Union, EU Court and other similar variations, then get them to request thier details are removed and then totally black out all search results worldwide for any of those term. See how they like the consequence of their actions

Personally I think you should have the right to kill off your data from a web site – so if I set up an account on Facebook or X404 I should have a simple method of having my account totally expunged however if I am linked to a story in the papers then that stays (or I can sue the papers if its incorrect) and links should find it. I can just see corrupt politicians using this to wipe their slate clean

Also I assume people will ask for selected links to be removed – so keep the link of me giving money of homeless children but remove the link of me abusing them

You'd have demonstrate that each of those links represented your personal data before they had to do anything to any of them.

What's become irrelevant or even undesirable to one person could be highly relevant to someone else.

Agree that this is wrong. It's essentially censorship and once you start going down that road, lots of things can be censored.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27407017

David Davis normally has a clue

I would say he is spot on.

If someone has illegally loaded some personal information about you on the net, you should have a way of getting it removed, also from search engine caches. I think the person requesting the information to be removed should be able to prove that the information is being displayed illegally, not that things can be removed on a whim - and if the person originally uploaded it themselves, then they can't just have it removed.

There should also be exceptions for the registered press, if they can prove it is in the public interest.

Part of the problem is that it used to be the case that news articles disappeared into archives and were difficult to find, so that when a legal decision lapsed, people couldn't find t without a lot of effort, the right for irrelevant thing to be forgotten pretty much looked after itself, now they are online and are never forgotten and search engines exacerbate this particular problem.

What about things like "rogue traders" - people who might do crap jobs consistently and run off with money from other people? What if they want information removed because it was posted illegally? Surely part of the strength of the internet is that you can google someone's name and see if they're a genuine person, whether people have had problems with them etc.

The big issue is that the ruling is ridiculously broad and it puts the onus on companies like Google over whoever is actually hosting the information. Google or anyone else should never be in that position for 'day to day' stuff, and it goes against the entire spirit of the web.

I mean how far do you take it? Look at the Geoffrey Archer case where he was caught out years later

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1420132.stm

It isn't just Google it is any website. Also CW, rogue traders etc. should be able to get the information removed if it is inaccurate or illegal. But there are existing slander laws for that. Just because you are posting something on the internet doesn't mean you can ignore the law.

The information has to be legal and it has to be not slanderous. That has nothing to do with pii directly and I'd the information is accurate and legal the hoster and the search engine would rightly refuse to take down the information.

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 1020 using Tapatalk

That's the problem though, you can't expect a search engine to start complying every time a Facebook post gets flagged up for whatever reason. You're talking about court cases that would drag on for years and with this ruling become ridiculously 'dynamic' - it creates a problem that isn't really there for the vast majority of the world's internet users.

Politician and paedophile ask Google to 'be forgotten'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27423527

That is of course some rather specific info the Beeb has there , but it shows how many and what sort of people are already trying their luck.

For the link above

The BBC said on the news last night that they had been contacted to remove info from their web site