"Right to be forgotten" is a catchy title that misses (and misconstrues) the point. Effectively (caveat IANAL), Europeans have a "freedom of information act"-like right to know any information about themselves that government institutions, corporate entities, etc. have about them. We also have the right to correct said information if it is erroneous. Finally we have the right to have said information not transferred to third parties.
The last one is what the Google case is about. Google has to, if requested, filter out any personal information from search results / ads / whatever google provides to third parties.
I think Google exists to make money, it has found a way (advertising) of making money from being the guy that answers questions. In some instances Google is making money by using private and/or personal information.
You can mince words about "censorship" or what have you, but Google is not being denied the use of said information (for e.g. targeted ads etc.), Google is not even being categorically forbidden from publishing said information (which still would not classify as censorship since the EU is not forbidding Google to say anything that is it's own information or opinion). However in the case where an individual does not want Google spreading his/her personal information, Google has to respect that individuals wish.
Anyway, the fact that the EU has pretty good consumer safety/protection laws can not come as a surprise to Google, so "not having a workflow in place" to handle these things seems a bit lazy, especially since Google has lost this battle before (pixelated houses in streetview in Germany).
I understand the pro-big-business side of the argument, I don't think it is fair to personify Google as just "a helpful guy", and I don't see how this is censorship (functionally or ethically).
This ruling sounds like asking a library to throw away their card catalog. The books are still there but if you don't know where they are no one can tell you.
This also leads to the question of time. If a person requests ten year old articles be removed from the index what happens if someone writes a newer article referencing the older information? To use the particular case that led to this can Google still link to the recently written articles that themselves link to the older information that Google is no longer allowed to link to?
If the information is factual and accurate why should it be removed from the index? What happens if the information is removed when the person is a private individual and a few years later they become a public individual (statesman, celebrity, etc). Does that information now become relevant and reappear in the index?
Yeah, what it sounds like and what it is are two different things, which is what I have been trying to get at. You seem to have enough energy to get worked up about it but not enough to read even the most basic analysis of this ruling. Just google "right to be forgotten" and pick your publication of choice.
I read the summary on mashable when it was linked earlier. I just can't comprehend this right to be forgotten in the digital age.
If something happened it happened. Whining about past transgressions living on forever just sounds stupid. As does the idea that these past transgressions can now be rated as to their relevance. If they were worthy of being reported on when they happened then they are worthy of being available today.
Google prepares to fuck with anyone who doesn't use webmail for gmail.
And?
Who doesn't already use webmail for their Gmail?
Google is a company that is required to make money. I don't see a thread for Windows, Apple, Sony, Oracle etc. and all the fucked up stuff they do on a regular basis.
Me. I think I'm going to transfer as many of my webstuff accounts as possible to my luke@juggler.net address in case gmail gets annoying to use. At the moment it redirects to gmail, but that way I can switch it to point elsewhere.
Google is a company that is required to make money. I don't see a thread for Windows, Apple, Sony, Oracle etc. and all the fucked up stuff they do on a regular basis.
b) feel free to start those threads. a) None of hose companies have "Don't be evil" as their motto. Hence the name of the thread.
Understanding why -- or even agreeing with what -- a company does, does not preclude one from also criticising said company. In this instance Google is usurping a fundamental web standard for profit. I find that deplorable.
Oh, backups, good point. I've been using Thunderbird to do quarterly backups for many years. I understand there are some easier options now, but I wonder if this will force me to go seek them out.
Oh yeah, I also use Mail.app to download every email sent or received (even those non-spam emails that don't reach my inbox) to my laptop. I need this for when I'm traveling and don't have access to the internet at all. And for backup purposes too, of course, as the emails are then sent to crashplan and my Time Machine backup.
Comments
The last one is what the Google case is about. Google has to, if requested, filter out any personal information from search results / ads / whatever google provides to third parties.
No one is asking for a "right to be forgotten".
You can mince words about "censorship" or what have you, but Google is not being denied the use of said information (for e.g. targeted ads etc.), Google is not even being categorically forbidden from publishing said information (which still would not classify as censorship since the EU is not forbidding Google to say anything that is it's own information or opinion). However in the case where an individual does not want Google spreading his/her personal information, Google has to respect that individuals wish.
Anyway, the fact that the EU has pretty good consumer safety/protection laws can not come as a surprise to Google, so "not having a workflow in place" to handle these things seems a bit lazy, especially since Google has lost this battle before (pixelated houses in streetview in Germany).
I understand the pro-big-business side of the argument, I don't think it is fair to personify Google as just "a helpful guy", and I don't see how this is censorship (functionally or ethically).
This also leads to the question of time. If a person requests ten year old articles be removed from the index what happens if someone writes a newer article referencing the older information? To use the particular case that led to this can Google still link to the recently written articles that themselves link to the older information that Google is no longer allowed to link to?
If the information is factual and accurate why should it be removed from the index? What happens if the information is removed when the person is a private individual and a few years later they become a public individual (statesman, celebrity, etc). Does that information now become relevant and reappear in the index?
E.g. Mashable has an easy to read summary.
If something happened it happened. Whining about past transgressions living on forever just sounds stupid. As does the idea that these past transgressions can now be rated as to their relevance. If they were worthy of being reported on when they happened then they are worthy of being available today.
Who doesn't already use webmail for their Gmail?
Google is a company that is required to make money. I don't see a thread for Windows, Apple, Sony, Oracle etc. and all the fucked up stuff they do on a regular basis.
a) None of hose companies have "Don't be evil" as their motto. Hence the name of the thread.
Understanding why -- or even agreeing with what -- a company does, does not preclude one from also criticising said company. In this instance Google is usurping a fundamental web standard for profit. I find that deplorable.
The kind of kludge I was talking about.