# Google told to "forget" old Internet content (lest someone be embarrassed) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2014, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334 "2014-05-13T10:42:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/61 "2014-05-15T14:50:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s hardly the court’s fault if your friends don’t know how the Internet works (though I’ve never seen a browser with “no URL line”.) It’s possible to hide the URL entry line as an option. Some PCs are delivered that way, and if the user is like many, has no idea that such a thing exists, because they never entered an actual address. The only way they know to get to a web page is thru a search engine or a clickable link. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/62 "2014-05-15T15:44:52Z")
Can you show me a browser that has that option? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/63 "2014-05-15T15:54:26Z")
Personally, I can’t remember the last time I typed in a URL. If I need to open [www.randomsite.com](http://www.randomsite.com), I’ll type in “randomsite” and click the first Google link, which will inevitably be the site I’m looking for. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/64 "2014-05-15T16:03:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Of course it’s in competition with capital-L Lawfulness! The entire point of this thread is that a government _can_ pass a Law that forbids truthful speech! > > That’s not my mistake. Your mistake is saying that’s my mistake. > > Well, not _necessarily_, no. But in this case, speech _can_ be punished – and when the defense of But-That’s-The-Truth is raised, punished regardless. Which is wrong. > > I mentioned false advertising upthread, and I’m curious as to how the law you favor would apply in the following situation: imagine there’s a guy who puts out ads proudly proclaiming that he’s been in the housepainting business for thirty years and has never received a complaint from a customer. > > And imagine that I’m the heroic journalist who writes up a truthful article about the guy: twenty-nine years ago he painted a house pink instead of the agreed-upon blue, and refused to refund his pay, and got taken to court. And twenty-eight years ago, he got caught swiping jewelry from a house he was painting; they pressed charges and he was convicted. And twenty-seven years ago, he showed up late and drunk for a job, and belligerently refused to leave, which is why the homeowners had the cops arrest him. And et cetera. > > I publish that story in the US; what happens? I publish it elsewhere; what happens? You publish in the UK- if it is true it is not defamatory. However if you do it to maliciously damage him when it is no longer appropriate (he got God twenty years ago and is now a born again angel) then you might be at risk- there is a balance- as SCOTUS has found on many occasions. But this decision has nothing to do with Defamation, but to do with the illegal collection and storage of data in an automated system. The US has taken an extreme position on information that is not shared with the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/65 "2014-05-15T16:05:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s hardly the court’s fault if your friends don’t know how the Internet works (though I’ve never seen a browser with “no URL line”.) Anyway, by your logic Google has become a _de facto_ content provider and is therefore liable for whatever its search engines turn up. I’m pretty sure they don’t want to make that argument (and as a Google user I certainly don’t.) I believe most browsers have an option to hide the URL box, and many less computerate people use a browser solely via hyperlinks from their home page and other stored pages. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/66 "2014-05-15T16:19:49Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Can you show me a browser that has that option? [Here ya go.](http://www.howtogeek.com/93995/how-to-auto-hide-the-address-bar-in-google-chrome-and-chromium/) > [@Alessan](#): > > Personally, I can’t remember the last time I typed in a URL. If I need to open [www.randomsite.com](http://www.randomsite.com), I’ll type in “randomsite” and click the first Google link, which will inevitably be the site I’m looking for. Which is one more step than necessary, and subject to errors (might not be the site you wanted), but that’s exactly what I was talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/67 "2014-05-15T16:42:06Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Personally, I can’t remember the last time I typed in a URL. If I need to open [www.randomsite.com](http://www.randomsite.com), I’ll type in “randomsite” and click the first Google link, which will inevitably be the site I’m looking for. Unless it is one paid for by advertising. I was looking for Dynasty IT in my home town; Googled, clicked, dialled phone number, asked where IT tech was- it was a rival firm in the same city who had paid to show up when IT and my town name was clicked- one above the correct web site! ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/68 "2014-05-15T16:49:08Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Which is one more step than necessary, and subject to errors (might not be the site you wanted), but that’s exactly what I was talking about. It’s eight characters fewer to type, and considering how typo-prone I am, that’s no small thing. I also make sure it’s the right site before I click the link. I’m not stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/69 "2014-05-15T17:44:40Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > [Here ya go.](http://www.howtogeek.com/93995/how-to-auto-hide-the-address-bar-in-google-chrome-and-chromium/) That’s an “experimental feature”. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/70 "2014-05-15T17:46:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s an “experimental feature”. It is moving toward touchscreen tablet style use. Typing is so much more difficult on a pop up keyboard so people will use it less and less. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/71 "2014-05-15T20:32:46Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > You publish in the UK- if it is true it is not defamatory. However if you do it to maliciously damage him when it is no longer appropriate (he got God twenty years ago and is now a born again angel) then you might be at risk- there is a balance That’s horrifying. I “might be at risk” for reporting true facts since it’s _no longer appropriate_ to mention it? You want to censor information for no better reason than ‘who needs pesky facts when balance and propriety call for ignorance?’ Are you out to ban the very _idea_ of an inconvenient truth? Good heavens, man, think of what you’re saying: you reached this decision, in support of this law, because of – what? Logic? Reason? Facts? Truth? Was it a matter of _informed_ consent? Of _enlightened_ self-interest? Was there a _free_ exchange of ideas? Or did you make your choice after you were only allowed to hear half of the argument? > [@](#): > > But this decision has nothing to do with Defamation, but to do with the illegal collection and storage of data in an automated system. It has _everything_ to do with quote-unquote defamation! If it weren’t for penalizing truthful information as slander or libel or whatever, collecting and storing data to that effect would be completely unproblematic! > [@](#): > > The US has taken an extreme position on information that is not shared with the rest of the world. Yeah, we’re in favor of it. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/72 "2014-05-15T22:15:40Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > In your humble opinion a Google search is not a new publication. In European Law it is. There are varying opinions as to what a publication is and is not and neither you, nor the US legal system, is the deciding factor in different jurisdictions. You missed the 1984 doublespeak point: A displayed return for a searchable database is acceptable (say, for newspaper archives). A displayed return for a searchable database is unacceptable because it’s a new publication (say, for Google). If the European Law thinks those are two different things, the Law is a Ass. To your other point of publications in the US being right wing: This is a reflection of what sells, and not whether or not speech is restricted. How about we get that crazy Westboro guy who was hollering about gay military funerals or something (I forget his exact point) to try hollering in Europe? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/73 "2014-05-15T22:24:07Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You publish in the UK- if it is true it is not defamatory. However if you do it to maliciously damage him when it is no longer appropriate (he got God twenty years ago and is now a born again angel) then you might be at risk- there is a balance > > That’s horrifying. > > I “might be at risk” for reporting true facts since it’s _no longer appropriate_ to mention it? You want to censor information for no better reason than ‘who needs pesky facts when balance and propriety call for ignorance?’ I know that the standard for libel is significantly lower in the UK than in the US, but is **Pjen’s** statement reflective of how the law is applied here, in print media as well? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2014, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/74 "2014-05-15T22:32:56Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > One of the criteria is that anyone who collects data and stores it in a retrivable system must ensure that the information is correct and that they have a right to hold such personal information for reasonable use. Google has little right to hold such information in order to carry out its business, and so must remove anything that is incorrect or not needed for its business. Google’s entire business model is based on gathering information, so how are such standards as “reasonable use” and “needed for its business” to be determined? Is Google responsible for purging all links to inaccurate sources, or is this to be done at the request of affected parties on a case by case basis? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/75 "2014-05-16T03:23:04Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > I know that the standard for libel is significantly lower in the UK than in the US, but is **Pjen’s** statement reflective of how the law is applied here, in print media as well? Partly. Truth is always a defense. Invasion of privacy is a tort that falls under the general heading of defamation but it doesn’t apply where someone simply reports the content of a public record (such as the conviction which appears to have been at issue here.) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/76 "2014-05-16T04:00:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Partly. Truth is always a defense. Invasion of privacy is a tort that falls under the general heading of defamation but it doesn’t apply where someone simply reports the content of a public record (such as the conviction which appears to have been at issue here.) Still, there likely have to be some standards there. Even if it’s a matter of public record, a journalist with a vendetta surely can’t make the front page story > [@](#): > > Town resident Mr. Smith is a big poopyhead who was convicted of aggravated assault in 1987. It may be relevant information to publish if he was running for public office, or got arrested again, but I can’t imagine a newspaper getting away with that if they just ran the story for no reason when Mr. Smith hasn’t done anything wrong or notable for years. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/77 "2014-05-16T04:29:02Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > That’s horrifying. > > I “might be at risk” for reporting true facts since it’s _no longer appropriate_ to mention it? You want to censor information for no better reason than ‘who needs pesky facts when balance and propriety call for ignorance?’ US Law may or may not be perfect, but that also applies to other jurisdictions with slightly different formulations on rights. Most people are able to accept that considering various rights, some will conflict and different jurisdictions will make different decisions about the resolution of those conflicts. Free Speech and Freedom of the Press are important, but these are preserved by more than simple laws on rights. The way that they are interpreted by judicial systems and the populace as a whole are more important than the nice words ina constitution. The US probably has the most extreme legal protection for Free Speech and Freedom of the Press in the world, yet in reality it is well down the table in the list of places where it is actually possible to have a Free Press and Freedom of Speech. Additionally the history of the actual implementation of those constitutional principles over the last 250 years has been extremely doubtful- see the Sedition Acts etc listed above and consider the current problems with Snowden and Manning and the pressure on the US Media to disclose sources in the interests of “National Interest”. Such pressure was at the base of McCarthyism and other inroads made into those Freedoms in the doubtful interests of National Security. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/78 "2014-05-16T04:36:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > It has _everything_ to do with quote-unquote defamation! If it weren’t for penalizing truthful information as slander or libel or whatever, collecting and storing data to that effect would be completely unproblematic! Defamation is the publishing of false information that negatively affects a person’s standing in a community. Privacy is a right to expect that information gathered by a third party and stored in an automated retrieval system and provided to others should be limited. This does not affect the Press, only the secondary storage of the information. This has always been the case as old newspapers are not required to be pulped just as old web pages are not required to be amended. What is banned is the illegal mass collection of data about individuals without due cause. Nothing in this stops the press investigating wrong doing. All this does is to say that a corporation must respect people’s privacy, and if it chooses to collect information in an automated manner then it must give a reason to do so. Google is a corporation and has created an automated system that collects information about third parties for no other reason than to make money for itself. It is bound by European Laws on Privacy such as the Data Protection Act. This is quite reasonable and is nothing to do with abrogation of Free Speech. In the current case the Spanish Bankrupt will still be at risk of theNational Media publishing the fact that he was bankrupt thirty years ago; what he will not be at risk of is one of his neighbours Googling his name and discovering this via an automated system. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/79 "2014-05-16T04:40:50Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Yeah, we’re in favor of it. Even where it breaches people’s reasonable expectation of Privacy. One cannot be absolutist about rights- Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press have been and still are surrounded by exceptions and realities in the USA. It just so happens that different groups of people decide different rules. Europeans are appalled by the Freedom of Speech being used as licence to abuse in the USA whereas Americans are appalled by lack of total Freedom of Speech to protect privacy in Europe and the Commonwealth. Neither take on Freedom versus Privacy is necessarily correct, and there is probably no correct answer to satisfy every jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/80 "2014-05-16T04:45:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You missed the 1984 doublespeak point: > A displayed return for a searchable database is acceptable (say, for newspaper archives). > A displayed return for a searchable database is unacceptable because it’s a new publication (say, for Google). > > If the European Law thinks those are two different things, the Law is a Ass. European Law does not say that. In the UK (I am not sure about other jursidictions but believe the law to be similar) Journalism is one of the exceptions- Journalists may collect information for the purpose of writing copy using an automated system (section 32(1) of the Act). Google is not collecting information for journalistic purposes, but for general use, therefore it is not exempt. It is a corporation collecting information with the intention of making money from the process. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334.md?page=5)