+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Top EU court rules that Google has to remove irrelevant links...

  1. #1
    Moderator Kay is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kent - the garden of England
    Posts
    6,166
    Blog Entries
    2
    Thanks
    4,297
    Thanked 3,342 Times in 2,133 Posts
    Rep Power
    95

    Top EU court rules that Google has to remove irrelevant links...

    ... if people request them to. I don't know what to make of this. In some ways it seems like a nice idea but completely unworkable.

    What's your take on it?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9360707.html
    British Expat - helping people to live and work abroad since the year 2000.

    The joy of Internet delivery - the cartoon illustrating this will make you laugh!



  2. #2
    Top Contributor grynge is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,719
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 944 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    I think it is a great idea, for years I have said that we need an opt out for our personal information, why should a company I have never given permission to be allowed to keep any information on me?
    Just because its freely available? Well that is ok for a person to go to the effort of looking it up but not for a company that scrapes it from whatever source to be used for something I never gave my permission for it to be used for.

    I just wish my government would take a similar step.
    And they thought me broken, that my tongue was coated lead, but I just couldn't make my words make sense to them, if you only listen with your ears ... I can't get in
    Non ducor, duco

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to grynge For This Useful Post:

    Kay (15 May 2014)

  4. #3
    Top Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    France. Between Limoges and Brive la Gaillarde.
    Posts
    1,273
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    2,874
    Thanked 458 Times in 331 Posts
    Rep Power
    21
    Pandora's box, and a nonsense. Removing it from Google's index doesn't remove it from the web. What we do need to do is ask Google to keep their index up-to-date, removing dead links quickly.

  5. #4
    Top Contributor grynge is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,719
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 944 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    I wonder what happens when for example, in Australia minor criminal records are for want of a better word expunged from being available to the public after 10 years, (they are kept on record for judicial purposes forever) I would say most countries have a similar option, yet the search engines and data collectors can keep this information forever. Shouldn't they have to obey the laws like everyone else?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chabrenas View Post
    Pandora's box, and a nonsense. Removing it from Google's index doesn't remove it from the web. What we do need to do is ask Google to keep their index up-to-date, removing dead links quickly.
    Shouldn't that be up to the search engine to keep upto date? Why should it be an individuals responsibility to have data removed? You can't even say because it would be time consuming, they say they can code for other intangible things surely their algorythm could be coded to remove bankruptcy information after a certain period, remove criminal record history after a certain period.
    Last edited by Kay; 15 May 2014 at 7:40 am. Reason: To merge posts
    And they thought me broken, that my tongue was coated lead, but I just couldn't make my words make sense to them, if you only listen with your ears ... I can't get in
    Non ducor, duco

  6. #5
    Administrator Clinton is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    7,615
    Blog Entries
    31
    Thanks
    4,228
    Thanked 3,026 Times in 1,683 Posts
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Chabrenas View Post
    Removing it from Google's index doesn't remove it from the web.
    But it just being "on the web" is not what concerns most people. Newspaper archives are on the web so info on an individual's criminal activity, for example, is still available even past the period when it's considered "spent". Just like court records etc., can be accessed even decades or centuries later.

    The problem is that Google directs people to that information and makes it soooo easy to find. Even misleading and malicious material. Directing people to information is Google's raison d'etre but should we as a society have absolutely no say in what a commercial entity does in this regard? What about when SEOs and PR people manipulate SERPs to show a particular person in a bad light? Or Google themselves decide to "favour" a particular religion, ideology, political party or legislative discussion via what historical documents they lead searchers to? Google already use their size to unfairly push down competitors as has been proven by court cases that went against them.

    Shouldn't that be up to the search engine to keep upto date? Why should it be an individuals responsibility to have data removed?
    Tony, this is something most people struggle to see. I fear you and I are in the minority. At the BBC coverage of this story where people can post their feedback, all the highest "liked" posts are those in support of Google and against this court decision.
    Find the right business brokers to maximise the value you extract from your business and improve the chances of selling your business.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Clinton For This Useful Post:

    Chabrenas (16 May 2014), Fish (22 May 2014), grynge (15 May 2014)

  8. #6
    Marketing Mentor Mikl is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    499
    Thanks
    125
    Thanked 407 Times in 225 Posts
    Rep Power
    14
    I agree with Chabrenas. The court is attacking the wrong target. There is definitely a strong argument in favour of the "right to be forgotten". But the obligation should be on the person who publishes the information, not a third party (Google in this case) who is simply reporting the fact that the information has been published.

    It's a common mistake to believe that Google is the web, and that removing something Google is the same as taking it completely off line. I'm surprised to see the EU court making that mistake.

    Mike

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Mikl For This Useful Post:

    Chabrenas (16 May 2014)

  10. #7
    Administrator Clinton is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    7,615
    Blog Entries
    31
    Thanks
    4,228
    Thanked 3,026 Times in 1,683 Posts
    Rep Power
    111
    Google isn't simply reporting the fact that information has been published. It is getting to choose which past information about you it should send searchers to. That's a power that can (and will) be used for evil.

    The argument about the publisher is a different one. I don't think publishers should be made to take down information just like I wouldn't support newpapers and magazines having to police every library to remove past issues once a certain date has passed.
    Find the right business brokers to maximise the value you extract from your business and improve the chances of selling your business.

  11. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked 278 Times in 120 Posts
    Rep Power
    17
    So, if I think that all of the links to my competitors' websites are irrelevant, then all I have to do is request Google to remove them? How's that not a huge win for the free Internet?

  12. #9
    Top Contributor grynge is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,719
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 944 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by petertdavis View Post
    So, if I think that all of the links to my competitors' websites are irrelevant, then all I have to do is request Google to remove them? How's that not a huge win for the free Internet?
    Only if those links are about you, and are indeed irrelevant then yes google should remove them. The onus would then be on your competitor to prove they were relevant.

    If I was to place a bogus site about you and had irrelevant information on that site. You take me to court and win a claim of libel/slander but I am hosted in a country outside of your countries legal reach, why should I profit from the traffic google could send?
    And they thought me broken, that my tongue was coated lead, but I just couldn't make my words make sense to them, if you only listen with your ears ... I can't get in
    Non ducor, duco

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to grynge For This Useful Post:

    Clinton (16 May 2014)

  14. #10
    Top Contributor grynge is a Premium Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    2,719
    Blog Entries
    6
    Thanks
    1,534
    Thanked 1,783 Times in 944 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    I can't understand some of the mentality, why should any company, any person be allowed to keep any information about me for any amount of time that they like? and worse still if that information is completely wrong, and before you say no the search engines don't keep that information, how do you think they work? They spider and store every piece of information they can.
    And they thought me broken, that my tongue was coated lead, but I just couldn't make my words make sense to them, if you only listen with your ears ... I can't get in
    Non ducor, duco

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Google asked to remove 100M piracy links this year so far
    By Kay in forum SEO & Search Engine News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 3 September 2013, 1:47 pm
  2. Oracle and Google ordered by court to disclose paid bloggers
    By Clinton in forum General & Miscellaneous
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 9 August 2012, 1:31 pm
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 26 February 2012, 6:58 am

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts