# 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:** 5
**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, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/81 "2014-05-16T04:49:22Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Y > > 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? One of the problems that besets the USA from an outside point of view is slavish adherence to the market. ALthough in design you have the most Free Press, most Democratic elections and Best Judicial system in the world, both are so affected by the market that you end up with the best press, Government and Legal system that money can buy. The rest of the world does not wish to follow that road, and chooses alternatives that limit the power of money. ---
**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, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/82 "2014-05-16T04:57:30Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > 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? The problem is the word ‘Business Model’. The legislation in the UK is set up to stop corporations (or individuals) collecting information to give them more power over individuals. Every person has the right to demand of a data processor for a small sum of money, all the information saved on them in an automated retrieval system. This stops employers running open blacklists of people or collecting negative information about employees or customers to use against them. Google has chosen to try to make money in a jurisdiction using a method which is controlled by privacy legislation. It is not a pillar of democracy but a money making corporation attempting to subvert the law. Having written all of the above, I can see that Facebook is at severe risk under this law. Data Protection covers information collected but also information given voluntarily by individuals. I can see Facebook being forced to remove personal information from its system where the person regrets publishing it. Given the embarrassing nature of much young people’s postings and their later more conservative lives, I predict that Facebook will have to make that process very effective if it wishes to do business in Europe. ---
**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, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/83 "2014-05-16T04:58:31Z")
> [@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.) Nor is that libel in the UK! ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/84 "2014-05-16T09:09:11Z")
> [@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? Since the man was tried and convicted, I really don’t think that would be held to be something that should be hidden. This is actually an area where Google won’t even have to make a decision - convicted? That’s valid to keep on record. It wouldn’t be libel under even the UK’s ridiculous libel laws. Charged but not convicted might be different, however. At the moment you can seriously damage someone’s reputation for an indefinite period, worldwide, by accusing them of something that they are then tried for. Lots of people believe in “no smoke without fire.” The police, social services, etc, would still have access to that information, and the articles themselves would still exist, but they wouldn’t turn up on a simple Google search using the exonerated defendant’s name. It would aso apply to victims who get named in the press. Like the underage teenage girl who went off with her teacher a few months back; it would be quite reasonable for her, in the future, to ask for her name to be disconnected from that story. The news articles (etc) would still exist, but if you Googled her name you woudn’t see them. How that would actually be done is a technical matter that I have no clue about, however. I’m not even sure if it’s possible. Google seem to think it is, but how? ---
**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 16, 2014, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/85 "2014-05-16T10:19:02Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Since the man was tried and convicted, I really don’t think that would be held to be something that should be hidden. This is actually an area where Google won’t even have to make a decision - convicted? That’s valid to keep on record. Look back on page one and you’ll see that what sparked my first post was **Pjen** ’s breezy assertion that _“We already accept that, for instance, convictions become spent and cannot be mentioned legally in news coverage after a certain amount of time.”_ I requested a cite, and **Chief Pedant** figured it was the Act he linked to – with the big fine sub-headings on “Rehabilitated persons and spent convictions” and “Defamation”. ---
**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, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/86 "2014-05-16T11:24:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Look back on page one and you’ll see that what sparked my first post was **Pjen** ’s breezy assertion that _“We already accept that, for instance, convictions become spent and cannot be mentioned legally in news coverage after a certain amount of time.”_ > > I requested a cite, and **Chief Pedant** figured it was the Act he linked to – with the big fine sub-headings on “Rehabilitated persons and spent convictions” and “Defamation”. I think US Law and UK Law are closer on this point than you realise Publishing such information maliciously would be likely to be actionable in each jurisdiction. Publishing with cause would not be. The difference is that storing the information in a retrievable manner is also illegal in the UK. ---
**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, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/87 "2014-05-16T11:25:31Z")
According to latest reports Google Germany has already set up a system to remove such stored information from Google searches. ---
**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 16, 2014, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/88 "2014-05-16T11:42:00Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I think US Law and UK Law are closer on this point than you realise Publishing such information maliciously would be likely to be actionable in each jurisdiction. Cite? ---
**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, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/89 "2014-05-16T13:06:32Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I think US Law and UK Law are closer on this point than you realise Publishing such information maliciously would be likely to be actionable in each jurisdiction. Publishing with cause would not be. **Pjen** , meet **Pjen**. It seems like you have some catching up to do. > [@Pjen](#): > > Nor is that libel in the UK! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/90 "2014-05-16T13:09:01Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You are confusing privacy and accessibility. > > The issue is not whether Google should be listing items which should be private. If that’s the issue, then I have no complaint. I don’t want Google listing my bank account, my sealed juvenile records, or the medical record listing my recent abortion. > > But I think instead that the issue is whether or not Google should be listing items which are not private–i.e., records not otherwise hidden from public consumption. Is it acceptable for Google to widen access to them? > > If they are already public records, the answer is “Yes.” > > The invasion of privacy, if there was one, was by the author of the original document or item. It is at that level that a mandate for improving privacy should occur. I’m not confusing privacy and accessibility, I’m suggesting something more subtle. I’m suggesting that the ability to access a new and unprecedentedly vast volume of almost unlimited information using a search tool of unprecedented and growing sophistication is so different from anything that has ever been possible before that it’s qualitatively something entirely new. And, as such, that it may not be unreasonable to impose unprecedented new safeguards on it. You can look at the individual items retrieved and argue that they were all “public” information anyway, but I will argue that the sum total of all of them, brought together in seconds by a search engine open to anyone, is greater than the whole. Hence my use of the term “paradigm shift”. A sort of analogy would be the data mining done by rewards miles companies, which generates entirely new and hitherto unavailable information from patterns of behavior. I agree with your suggestion for securing privacy, but I ask whether, in these circumstances, that is sufficient. > [@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 is an Ass if Internet = newspaper. Is it? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/91 "2014-05-16T13:14:38Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Yes, it does make them lesser countries. In Australia, seven women were raped and one was murdered because judges kept letting Adrian Bayley out on bail or releasing him before his parole date. If the judges involved had not shown this depraved indifference towards the future victims of this serial rapist, these crimes would not have happened. It is obscene that they are given the power to imprison Derryn Hinch for refusing to help cover up their complicity in Bayley’s crimes. What the flying fuck does that have to do with privacy laws? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/92 "2014-05-16T13:59:54Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > What the flying fuck does that have to do with privacy laws? Why don’t you ask **Pjen**? > [@Pjen](#): > > We already accept that, for instance, convictions become spent and cannot be mentioned legally in news coverage after a certain amount of time. Adrian Bayley had proven by his own actions that if he was released, he would rape again. The previous judges have proven by their own actions that they will let a serial rapist out of prison despite clear evidence that he would rape again. Making it illegal to disclose these patterns of behaviour makes it more likely that they would continue, because public awareness of the fact that judicial negligence has enabled these crimes makes it less likely for a judge to get away with such negligence in the future. ---
**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, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/93 "2014-05-16T14:05:08Z")
You do know that jurors aren’t allowed to Google defendants, right? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/94 "2014-05-16T18:42:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I wonder then if that is why Google’s [del]Ministry of information[/del] spiders saw this thread and marked us up as an attack site. 😉 With a Huxley-Orwell connection, this reminded me of my own view: As much as I agree with the European sentiment, it seems too late: Pandora’s box has been opened and we enter a Strange New World. Perhaps a future generation will re-attain privacy, but it’s too late for Generation Z. And what about Facebook’s data? The NSA is doubtlessly mining Facebook data; what about other entities? ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/95 "2014-05-17T04:14:01Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The problem is the word ‘Business Model’. > > The legislation in the UK is set up to stop corporations (or individuals) collecting information to give them more power over individuals. Every person has the right to demand of a data processor for a small sum of money, all the information saved on them in an automated retrieval system. This stops employers running open blacklists of people or collecting negative information about employees or customers to use against them. > > Google has chosen to try to make money in a jurisdiction using a method which is controlled by privacy legislation. It is not a pillar of democracy but a money making corporation attempting to subvert the law. Then how do you suggest a search engine be developed and supported with the infrastructure necessary to operate it? The people who do the work deserve to be paid for it. It costs money to run server farms. Certainly, at the outset Google could have positioned itself as a premium pay service, and thus avoided the need for jumping into the sordid pool of marketing and advertising. We wouldn’t be having this discussion now, not only because their wouldn’t be privacy law conflicts, but even more so because the whole WWW would not be nearly the thing that it did in fact become. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/96 "2014-05-17T13:07:27Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Then how do you suggest a search engine be developed and supported with the infrastructure necessary to operate it? The people who do the work deserve to be paid for it. It costs money to run server farms. Certainly, at the outset Google could have positioned itself as a premium pay service, and thus avoided the need for jumping into the sordid pool of marketing and advertising. We wouldn’t be having this discussion now, not only because their wouldn’t be privacy law conflicts, but even more so because the whole WWW would not be nearly the thing that it did in fact become. One of the costs of doing business in any jurisdiction is the necessity to meet the costs of complying with the laws in that jurisdiction. Europe has a law that says that personal information can only be stored and transmitted by an automated retrieval system if the data controller has a legal right to do that. Google is making money by controlling data, storing it in a retrieval system and providing it to third parties. The only reason it has to do that is making money for Google Corporation through advertising. Unfortunately for Google, ‘making money’ is not one of the defenses to illegally collecting data. It was Google’s choice to try to make money by controlling data in Europe. If it wished to do so it must comply with the relevant take-down legislation. That is a cost to it of doing business in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/97 "2014-05-17T13:08:39Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > . Certainly, at the outset Google could have positioned itself as a premium pay service, and thus avoided the need for jumping into the sordid pool of marketing and advertising. We wouldn’t be having this discussion now, not only because their wouldn’t be privacy law conflicts, but even more so because the whole WWW would not be nearly the thing that it did in fact become. Even under that model it would still be acting outside the law. ---
**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 17, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/98 "2014-05-17T16:23:33Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Even under that model it would still be acting outside the law. Is that with regard to the entire operation, or just legal takedown orders, if not obeyed? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/99 "2014-05-17T16:28:27Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > Is that with regard to the entire operation, or just legal takedown orders, if not obeyed? It is illegal in Europe to collect personal data unless it is authorised. Authorisation requires meeting certain standards- necessity to service a client/employee list, crime detection, academic research etc. Being a money making corporation hoping to profit in some manner from the random or organised collection, storage and transmission of personal data is not one of these standards. ---
**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 17, 2014, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334/100 "2014-05-17T21:19:36Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > It is illegal in Europe to collect personal data unless it is authorised. Authorisation requires meeting certain standards- necessity to service a client/employee list, crime detection, academic research etc. Being a money making corporation hoping to profit in some manner from the random or organised collection, storage and transmission of personal data is not one of these standards. To make sure we’re on the same page here, your definition of personal data does include anonymous profiling or pattern recognition based on search and click history, is that correct? If so, does this also mean that Amazon and Netflix recommendations are illegal? At least I assume they would be, since I’m at a loss to understand how that functionality could work without some kind of tracking. Or could that be construed as servicing a client list, and therefore permissible? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/google-told-to-forget-old-internet-content-lest-someone-be-embarrassed/688334.md?page=6)