Policing the internet

Juan Mourep

Juan Mourep

Vital 1st Team Regular
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/03/google-right-to-be-forgotten-robert-peston_n_5553880.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Google Removes Robert Peston's BBC Article Because Someone Wanted It 'Forgotten'

The BBC's economics editor has spoken of his "shock" after learning Google is removing his work because someone wanted it "forgotten."

Robert Peston woke up to an eyebrow-raising email from the search engine giant this morning, informing him his work had been eradicated from history, complying with new measures that require sites to honour the "right to be forgotten" online.

A landmark European court decision in May said Google must listen and sometimes comply when individuals ask it to remove links to newspaper articles or websites containing personal information.

The "right to be forgotten" is based on the premise that outdated information about people should be removed from the internet after a certain time.

Because this only applies in Europe, because this is an EU ruling, if you put in google.com/ncr that basically means you are not searching the regional version of Google and even if you are in the UK you can still find anything.



 
Good heavens. Would love to know the circumstances of that article. Very interesting. They say the Internet never forgets and you leave a trail, seems it might now have the ability to forget!?
 
I can understand some people wanting information 'forgotten', but why has someone like Robert Peston had an article removed by Google? Surely if they wish to remove it, he should be informed before they do. And if someone wants something to be removed, then they have to request it?......

So Google are now becoming the Internet Police, as the thread title intimates are they?......
 
On reading the article at the link, someone did request it, they did inform him, this has been passed in UK law, well, a statute.

 
Some I would argue might well be appropriate.

We sometimes get a takedown request. It usually has to transgress the law, but I guess if something unintentionally causes offense, if explained clearly why, we do consider removal. Life is too short not to try to be fair.

You obviously get the flipside, the politically correct world gone mad, we aren't so obliging with them!

One person who used to be on one site was put in prison for fraud, did his time, then served the director ban time, ten years I think. The re is an article about eh at happened on a newspaper site.

I believe he wanted/ wants it removed. It is factual, it was the news. Would it cause any damage to the paper site to remove it after all that time? No? But should they?

They can't be obliged to I don't think, it is accurate, but morally if it upsets the guy that much?

:81:
 
Historical legal history should not be removed unless a statute of limitations for such things is brought into law. This beggs the question, should there be a statute of limitations for proven facts in the public domain?

 
It's just Google making the new legislation look as stupid as it really is. They've done it on purpose to highlight how ridiculous it is to allow some things to be wiped away.
 
Yup. Honest answer for me Villan of the north, really not sure. Where would it end?

A fact is a fact, should that be removable? I lean towards no.
 
Ive seen many Youtube removed by Google that was documentries about Government cover ups and other sensitive issues the guys at the top wouldn't and don't want ordinary folk to learn about, so this is nothing new to me tbh,
 
Clive, they are generally removed for copyright reasons, which is, although frustrating at times, always the right thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.