“Father’s fury as Google grants ‘right to be forgotten’ to the man serving 30 years for the murder of his daughter
Father of victim Lesley Molseed says her killer has no right to be forgotten
Ronald Castree, 61, abducted and stabbed to death the 11-year-old
Story has been removed from Google search results after EU ruling in May
Lesley’s father, Fred Anderson, said: ‘I think it’s appalling’”
I have read the article and note two things:
1/ It does not say that the killer asked for the takedown, but the story does note that his wife changed her name back to her maiden name, and gives her full current name, thus identifying her current identity and meaning that if her name is googled, it shows her as the wife of a killer. I suspect she asked for the take down.
2/ The Daily Mail compounds the felony by reprinting the whole original article meaning that her name is still linked by google via today’s article.
Now I can see why his wife (who was not in any way implicated with the murder) would wish for some privacy and cannot see any valid reason why the Mail should have breached her privacy in such a manner in the first place.
I do note that his son, born four years after the killing was banned from becoming an employee of the Police service merely because of his father’s notoriety! Maybe be a right to Privacy is necessary to prevent spoiling the lives of innocent people. The news article on this also includes unnecessary information about the son.
Should newspapers have the right to display such private information of innocent people without having some justification?
The complaint is that an information retention system separate from government is able to return the information so readily. Previously such information would have been difficult to find, but now it is available at the touch of a button.
The media do not currently have carte blanche to publish any material- there are many guidelines about what is appropriate journalistic behaviour- photographs on private property, information irregularly obtained by deception, confidentiality agreements, phone tapping, theft, etc.
There needs to be some sort of balance because of the low quality of newspapers in the UK which are willing to destroy lives of ordinary innocent people without compunction, just to sell a story.
It is just possible that Google is in further breach of domestic British law on personal information, but no-one yet has brought a case.
The Law is quite clear that any organisation that collects and collates information about individuals needs to register as a data controller. It is also clear that only information necessary for the carrying out of its business in relations to that person may be collected, and that if collected it should not be shared with a third party without consent.
It is the collection and collation by computer that probably puts Google at risk here as the Act would not cover the original newspaper articles themselves which are stand alone pieces.
For instance a shadowy organisation collected and collated information on building laborers with the intention of ensuring that they were not employed by any major builder. People were placed on this blacklist for many reasons- involvement in strikes, complaining about health and safety, management practices and withholding wages etc.
Is there a right to collect personal information on people and publish it in this manner- possibly not under British law.
On the other hand, no reasonable person would object to an organization collecting and publishing individual information ---- provided it was true — on a list of offending employers, who underpaid staff, disregarded safety regulations, were verbally or physically abusive etc. to underlings, provided the information was not destined for Bomb-Throwers Weekly.
If it included personal information as laid down in the act and was easily searchable and shared with other people or published, then one would have to comply with the Act.
Google isn’t an information retention system, it’s an information retrieval system. It’s the internet’s librarian, and your problem seems to be that it’s very good at its job.
So instead of demanding that books be banned, you’re telling the librarian not to find them. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
The government of Israel also expressed concern over the availability of high-resolution pictures of sensitive locations in its territory, and applied pressure to have Israeli territory (and the Occupied Territories held by Israeli forces) appear in less clear detail.
JERUSALEM — Since I arrived in Jerusalem more than two years ago, I have taken a “Don’t Ask/Hope They Don’t Tell” approach to Israel’s military censor. Like every other journalist who works here, I had to sign a form agreeing to comply with the censorship system in order to get a government press card, which I need to enter various buildings, events and the Gaza Strip. But no one ever told me what to submit to the censor, or how (which was more than fine with me).
Until Friday. I was reporting on the attack in which Palestinian militants killed two Israeli soldiers outside Gaza’s southern city of Rafah and possibly captured a third, shattering a planned 72-hour halt in hostilities, when the phone rang.
“This is Udi, the military censor,” said a voice. He told me that articles about the Israeli who might have been captured, Second Lt. Hadar Goldin, had to be submitted before publication. I mentioned that we had already had an article on our website, and he said not to worry, just send updates. He gave me an email address and a phone number, and promised a quick turnaround.
Ah…aside from lashing out at Alessan (presumably), how does this relate to what you are asking in your OP? The two situations seem completely different to me.
I don’t think you’re going to find a whole lot of support for an EU style “right to privacy” among Americans. I also find it odd that someone was banned from working for the police because of the sins of his father. That’s some straight up biblical style vengeance right there.
What’s inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant and who determines whether or not the link should be taken offline? Does Google have to hire a solicitor to defend against each request to take down a link? I think this is a bad decision by the EU but I think we take freedom of speech more seriously here than most Europeans do.
Well…yeah. As a drive by one-liner I thought it was pretty on point. Those other countries DO have issues with Google, and that’s kind of what this thread is about, right? Pjen’s link seemed to be about general censorship wrt military operations, and cartographic censorship which didn’t seem to have anything to do with Google (well, the later does I guess, since Google Maps goes along with that), and is kind of true in a lot of countries, including the US wrt military operations or cartography.
Well it wasn’t on point, it’s idiotic. The EU court ruling is trying to balance privacy rights with freedom of information. They ruled that individuals can petition Google to have links removed if it’s unfairly damaging/long time gone. N Korea and Iran are oppressive regimes trying to suppress dissent by controlling information. That’s “how they’re any different”.
The ‘private information’ in this case being a criminal conviction in a public court? Of course not. Sealed court proceedings are how you get Star Chambers and all manner of injustice.