# The European Google Take Down Ruling **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 26, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644 "2014-09-26T15:41:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/21 "2014-09-26T19:29:18Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > This isn’t remotely like sealed court proceedings. So you can relax. The difference isn’t all that stark - it’s a limitation placed on the ability of the public to access information about a criminal case. The motives are different, granted, but the effect is somewhat similar. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/22 "2014-09-26T19:38:28Z")
No it’s really not similar at all. With open court procedures the public can watch along and be assured (or not) that a fair trial is happening. This ruling is far more akin to the automatic pardons and criminal record expulsions that many free countries apply after a set amount of time. Eta: And the other massive difference is that it’s individuals applying for link removal. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/23 "2014-09-26T19:40:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No it’s really not similar at all. With open court procedures the public can watch along and be assured (or not) that a fair trial is happening. This ruling is far more akin to the automatic pardons and criminal record expulsions that many free countries apply after a set amount of time. Fair enough, I overstated things. Still, one’s criminal conviction is not private information, it should be fair game for citizens and the media to report on. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/24 "2014-09-26T19:47:55Z")
Of course it’s fair to report on. But this is asking for those reports to not last forever. I understand that’s not obviously “right” but it’s not completely unreasonable either. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/25 "2014-09-26T19:48:24Z")
Still not clear on what private information was disclosed. Any? ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/26 "2014-09-26T20:18:33Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > 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”. No, they’re both about jurisdiction - should national governments, whose authority is limited to their own soil, have the right to limit a global entity like the internet?Furthermore, if Google keeps its list of personal information on a server in the U.S., why should the UK government have the right to tell the company to erase it? Say, I, a non-Brit, want access to that information. Why should the Crown have the right to keep it from me? The UK’s laws don’t apply to the rest of the world - and that means that they don’t apply to the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/27 "2014-09-26T20:37:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > What private information was disclosed? The new name of the estranged wife. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/28 "2014-09-26T20:40:59Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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. No. It is the new identity of the innocent wife who changed her name to separate herself from him. Now anyone who googles her name links to her ex husband. There was no need to publicise her new name. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/29 "2014-09-26T20:44:53Z")
To reinforce my point, I do not think the killer would be successful in this request but I do think his ex wife would be as the article identifies her new name and anyone searching using google would be sent directly to the case with her old and new name. The son has also changed his name and another article does the same to him. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/30 "2014-09-26T20:49:57Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The new name of the estranged wife. Thats not private information, is it? Aren’t name changes part of the public record? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/31 "2014-09-26T20:53:44Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > No. It is the new identity of the innocent wife who changed her name to separate herself from him. Now anyone who googles her name links to her ex husband. There was no need to publicise her new name. It’s the mother of the _victim_ who has changed her name. > [@](#): > > afterwards Lesley’s mother, who has reverted to her maiden name, April Garrett, said: 'We are relieved that after so long our quest for justice for Lesley is now over. ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/32 "2014-09-26T20:55:43Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > No, they’re both about jurisdiction - should national governments, whose authority is limited to their own soil, have the right to limit a global entity like the internet?Furthermore, if Google keeps its list of personal information on a server in the U.S., why should the UK government have the right to tell the company to erase it? Say, I, a non-Brit, want access to that information. Why should the Crown have the right to keep it from me? > > The UK’s laws don’t apply to the rest of the world - and that means that they don’t apply to the internet. “Global entity”? You’re making a lot of assumptions about what the Internet is, and in particular about what it is becoming. The EU court ruling applies only to 28 EU countries, I believe. The Internet is already far from borderless – some US commercial content isn’t available outside the US just for copyright reasons, for instance, some streaming services are similarly limited, and Google itself has been actively filtering content on the basis of copyright complaints. Ironically as the Internet becomes more ubiquitous in our lives, service providers may also have to become more responsive to the laws of individual countries. As Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, recently said, we may be at the end of the global Internet as we know it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/33 "2014-09-26T21:07:30Z")
Can we cool it with the snipping back and forth about the dictionary definition of privacy? The basic discussion, to me, seems to be about accessibility of information typically private as a default result of it being difficult to obtain. Forcing someone to define privacy dodges the issue and is annoying. Privacy is a perfectly cromulent description for the kind of information hidden as a result of its inaccessible nature and not always by legal fiat. Besides, the kind of information we’re talking about can be linked to other areas of justice like harassment, slander, and discrimination. So its not just privacy that’s the issue, you have to take the whole thing into account What I believe is that alas, technology makes private information more accessible, and sometimes that effect is negative but the overwhelming outcome is positive. I feel the plaintiffs in these cases need to make a better case for privacy much moreso than simply the “right to be forgotten”. We need to balance that out with the free flow of much of the information that’s out on the internet. However, I will not accuse any government or organization of being unfairly restrictive and dictatorial if they can make a case for a reasonable accommodation to both the public and the individual’s desire for information or lack thereof. Its not evil to simply restrict the access of information, evil comes from the reason. If Google does this, they are not bad for simply doing it if their reasons are sound ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/34 "2014-09-26T21:12:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > As Jennifer Granick, Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, recently said, we may be at the end of the global Internet as we know it. I know - and that’s what I’m trying to fight. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/35 "2014-09-26T21:13:19Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > No. It is the new identity of the innocent wife who changed her name to separate herself from him. Now anyone who googles her name links to her ex husband. There was no need to publicise her new name. Yes, but look and see the other articles people are attempting to remove links to. [ul] [li]a September 2010 article about multi-millionaire Tory MP Jonathan Djanogly, who admitted hiring private eyes to spy on his local party members.[/li][li]An article from 2008 about drunken University of Bristol student Alex Fiallos, who drove his Mini Cooper round the university campus like a scene from the Italian Job.[/li][li]A story about Scottish referee Dougie McDonald, who admitted lying to Celtic manager Neil Lennon about the awarding of a penalty in 2010.[/li][/ul] According to the linked article Google is the one responsible for assessing each request. Are there any pitfalls you can see to this system? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/36 "2014-09-26T21:29:21Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The new name of the estranged wife. Are name changes a matter of public record in the EU? Can a person change their name by fiat or is there a legal process they must follow, get approved, etc.? > [@YogSosoth](#): > > Can we cool it with the snipping back and forth about the dictionary definition of privacy? The basic discussion, to me, seems to be about accessibility of information typically private as a default result of it being difficult to obtain. Forcing someone to define privacy dodges the issue and is annoying. Privacy is a perfectly cromulent description for the kind of information hidden as a result of its inaccessible nature and not always by legal fiat. No. Certain information is private, and other information is public. What information is private vs. what is public is the crux of the question. From the point of view of the US (I know this about the EU) A person’s legal name and an associated name change is not private. A person’s criminal record is not private. All of these things are matters of public record. The fact that the internet makes it easy to acquire vs. going down to the courthouse (or equivalent) and making the request is irrelevant. Privacy is not determined based on the ease of acquisition. ---
**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:** [September 26, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/37 "2014-09-26T21:39:23Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I know - and that’s what I’m trying to fight. There are different conflicting issues here. The Internet is displacing so many conventional information resources and adding so many powerful new ones, all under the control of powerful search capabilities, that it’s created an unprecedented and rather fearsome set of capabilities. There’s no prospect of having a free-for-all Wild West kind of Internet where anything goes as we did in the early days. It’s going to have to become increasingly subject to national laws, as has happened several times now in the EU, and happened in Canada, too, when Facebook got an earful from the Privacy Commissioner about their shoddy privacy policies and were told to shape up or face legal consequences. That said, and while Granick is onside with some of the ECJ rulings, she does think this particular one is overly broad. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/38 "2014-09-26T21:57:03Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > What I believe is that alas, technology makes private information more accessible, and sometimes that effect is negative but the overwhelming outcome is positive. Tell that to everybody whose mugshot is plastered across dozens of sleazy websites offering to take it down for a fee. (Myself not included, so far.) ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/39 "2014-09-26T22:40:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Thats not private information, is it? Aren’t name changes part of the public record? No. You are free to change your name without publicising it. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/40 "2014-09-26T22:44:26Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Are name changes a matter of public record in the EU? Can a person change their name by fiat or is there a legal process they must follow, get approved, etc.? > > No. > > Certain information is private, and other information is public. What information is private vs. what is public is the crux of the question. From the point of view of the US (I know this about the EU) A person’s legal name and an associated name change is not private. A person’s criminal record is not private. All of these things are matters of public record. The fact that the internet makes it easy to acquire vs. going down to the courthouse (or equivalent) and making the request is irrelevant. Privacy is not determined based on the ease of acquisition. It is not a public matter in the UK. You take a new name merely by usage. No deed poll or legal document is necessary. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644.md?page=3)