# 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:** 3
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/41 "2014-09-26T22:45:39Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > 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? No more than a publishing company’s decision about whether a fact is libellous. ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/42 "2014-09-26T22:51:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > 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. Something done on a small scale vs. a mass scale changes the action fundamentally in many cases of privacy. On a small scale, a person can walk by your house and look at it and the homeowner can and should do nothing about that. There is no expectation of privacy for the outside of his house. However, if he were famous, and paparazzi, fans, and others hung around outside 24/7 snapping pictures and yapping, I can see a situation in which he has a legitimate claim to harassment, especially if all of that is directed by one person What I think is that that ease of the internet making information so readily accessible creates a third status between public and private where people have some expectation of privacy, but not too much. I think that the line should be drawn, the debate is where, not that the line shouldn’t be drawn at all. I would say that your beliefs would be valid 50 years ago, but they failed to change with technology. Certainly if we invent teleportation, or the ability to open a portal to look at any spot on earth, we’d create new laws to limit that new freedom to make it more in line with our existing beliefs on privacy > [@VinylTurnip](#): > > 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.) Its still overwhelmingly positive, they are the exception ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/43 "2014-09-26T22:56:59Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > The UK’s laws don’t apply to the rest of the world - and that means that they don’t apply to the internet. That’s hilariously naive. The U.K. applies laws to the telecommunications in their country. It doesn’t matter where the server is if it’s being broadcast through their territory. Given your expanded stance, it seems Pjen was not off point at all. Israel demanding Google to fuzz up satellite imagery is clearly counter your Cyberspace Independence views. No? ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/44 "2014-09-26T23:11:14Z")
> [@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. 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 Don’t we pretty much have to argue about the definition of privacy? Because what this ruling is about is the European Court ordering the concealing of true, factual information because it might embarrass somebody. It seems to me that this is a pretty big restriction of the public’s right to know and a free press and all that. It seems to me that if you’re going to set up something like this, where articles can be unindexed at the request of the subject, you have to set pretty high standards for that…if the information is libelous, or if it violates privacy or can be shown to cause actual, measurable harm. So we have to talk about what privacy is and how much privacy a person is reasonably able to expect. ---
**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 27, 2014, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/45 "2014-09-27T01:17:04Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > No more than a publishing company’s decision about whether a fact is libellous. I’m not a fan of British libel laws either. Once something is a matter of public record, like, say, a criminal conviction, there is no right to privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/46 "2014-09-27T05:53:19Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > I’m not a fan of British libel laws either. Once something is a matter of public record, like, say, a criminal conviction, there is no right to privacy. I am no fan of British libel laws either but that is beside the point. All countries have libel laws. And it is not what is at issue. Here it seems to be the privacy of people parallel to the case- innocent people who are accidentally associated. Should they have the right to privacy? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/47 "2014-09-27T13:35:29Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > This news story appeared today: > > [Google denies removing then reinstating MailOnline story about murderous paedophile under controversial 'right to be forgotten' ruling | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2770597/Father-murder-victim-says-killer-no-right-forgotten-MailOnline-article-hidden-Google-EU-s-right-forgotten-story.html) > > “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? I think there should definitely be some limit to how newspapers behave when their actions can severely harm persons who are not guilty of any crime and really not guilty of any wrongdoing. There should be some privacy right there. I’m not a big fan of Google’s business model or the way it presents itself as an ethical company when it’s really not (I don’t believe companies should necessarily be super-ethical, but I like my companies honest about what they are.) Obviously I don’t think a police department should be making hiring decisions based on who someone’s father is. But I also don’t think search engines should be required not to index published newspaper articles just because of whom they might reference. I feel if there is regulation it should be on the media level, not the search engine level. Search engines should be “dumb” in that they just grab what’s most relevant to search term. Privacy rights should be protected more “at the source” in my opinion, when protections are necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/48 "2014-09-27T13:41:39Z")
Also in terms of things like “targeted lists” and “collecting information on persons”, that’s not really how the technology of search engines works. Now, Google absolutely _does_ collect information on individuals who use its services, in an anonymized form to better serve up advertising (Google is an advertising company, with most of it coming from their search ads, anything else they pretend to be represents either no real revenue for Google or even losing business propositions.) But the actual search engine algorithm and its results isn’t really a collection or storage of information on persons, at least not in terms of applying to the legal act you mention (and that I’ve briefly looked over.) I think it’d be a complex technical legal question, but I think at least technologically search engines don’t really work that way. You can’t type “union rabble rousers” into Google and there is a dataset put together by Google with a list of names of persons who are union activists. You will instead get a lot of articles relating to labor relations, some of which will mention individuals by name. That’s not really the same as the type of “lists” you’re positing, because there is no repository of information like that at play in how the search engines work. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/49 "2014-09-27T16:44:25Z")
Is Google “forgetting” things only in countries where it is legally required to do so? If yes, then what’s to stop people in said country from plugging in a browser proxy and getting the information anyway? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/50 "2014-09-27T17:40:08Z")
How is a person’s name private? That is what he or she presents himself to the public as, regardless of any registration laws. And if a newspaper wants to say that Jane Smith used to be married to Ted Bundy, serial killer, why would any free society prohibit that? The readers can make their own determination of what level of scorn should be heaped upon Jane, if any at all. I can’t fathom a society that portends to have freedom of the press try to restrict them in this way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/51 "2014-09-27T20:46:33Z")
Personally, I think the root of the problem here has nothing to do with privacy rights or How the Internet is dealt with on a global scale, and everything to do with the fact that the British press tends heavily towards a general lack of ethical standards. I’ll be damned if I know how to get a large number of British journalists to have any sort of code that values truth and actually makes decisions that weigh the utility of the press with the potential fallout from reporting, but let’s recognize the real bad guy in these situations, and it isn’t Google. ---
**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 27, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/52 "2014-09-27T20:52:28Z")
> [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](#): > > Is Google “forgetting” things only in countries where it is legally required to do so? If yes, then what’s to stop people in said country from plugging in a browser proxy and getting the information anyway? Seriously, it’s not even as difficult as that. Instead of using [google.co.uk](http://google.co.uk), just use [google.com](http://google.com) (it’s an option on the [google.co.uk](http://google.co.uk) homepage), or just use [Google](http://google.com/ncr) which disables the redirects to localised versions completely. ---
**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 27, 2014, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/53 "2014-09-27T21:48:31Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > And if a newspaper wants to say that Jane Smith used to be married to Ted Bundy, serial killer, why would any free society prohibit that? The readers can make their own determination of what level of scorn should be heaped upon Jane, if any at all. I can’t fathom a society that portends to have freedom of the press try to restrict them in this way. It seems like the ruling is even stranger than that. Because you have the situation where it’s legal for the press to print the story, but then after some time has passed, it becomes illegal for Google to index the story. So this is bizarre. ---
**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 27, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/54 "2014-09-27T22:01:41Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > It seems like the ruling is even stranger than that. Because you have the situation where it’s legal for the press to print the story, but then after some time has passed, it becomes illegal for Google to index the story. So this is bizarre. It seems as though the law mainly restricts private citizens, while having no effect on institutions with extensive record-keeping capabilities - like newspapers. In fact, it prevents citizens from using alternate sources of information other than the UK press, and it prevents people from checking the veracity of facts published in the newspapers. I’m sure that the papers have written a lot of stuff they’d prefer be forgotten. ---
**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 27, 2014, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/55 "2014-09-27T22:27:00Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I am no fan of British libel laws either but that is beside the point. All countries have libel laws. Okay. But you were the one who brought up libel not me. > [@](#): > > And it is not what is at issue. Here it seems to be the privacy of people parallel to the case- innocent people who are accidentally associated. Should they have the right to privacy? My answer is no. And it’s strange to me that this only affects the internet. Why can’t a British subject demand that the local library redact articles from their newspaper archives if it’s got information which is embarrassing or no longer relevant? If it’s okay to access the information at an archive it’s okay to access online. ---
**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 27, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/56 "2014-09-27T22:53:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > My answer is no. And it’s strange to me that this only affects the internet. Why can’t a British subject demand that the local library redact articles from their newspaper archives if it’s got information which is embarrassing or no longer relevant? If it’s okay to access the information at an archive it’s okay to access online. No, it isn’t. Because it’s precisely the ubiquity of the Internet and the unprecedented power of Internet + search engine that has given rise to these rulings in the first place. It is a qualitatively different and transformative power, and pointing out how _ **some** _ things in the past were similar in _ **some** _ ways isn’t meaningful. No, a modern computer isn’t just a fast version of a Boroughs hand-cranked mechanical calculator, and a jet plane isn’t just a fast version of a horse. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/57 "2014-09-27T23:13:58Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Should the government have the right to prevent newspapers from publishing information the government doesn’t want the public to know? Not to start a pissing contest or a hijack, but the Israeli government certainly thinks so with, to the best of my knowledge, little criticism from the public. FWIW, I do agree with your comment though. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/58 "2014-09-27T23:53:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > No, it isn’t. Because it’s precisely the ubiquity of the Internet and the unprecedented power of Internet + search engine that has given rise to these rulings in the first place. It is a qualitatively different and transformative power, and pointing out how _ **some** _ things in the past were similar in _ **some** _ ways isn’t meaningful. No, a modern computer isn’t just a fast version of a Boroughs hand-cranked mechanical calculator, and a jet plane isn’t just a fast version of a horse. I agree, but the principle is the same. Yes, I can find out more about Jane Smith by sitting at my computer than I could have by doing hours of research at the local library 30 years ago. Not to sound like a smart ass, but so what? Either the information is truthful, non-private, and wanted by an interested public or it isn’t. Technology or the delivery mechanism isn’t relevant to that question. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/59 "2014-09-28T02:09:23Z")
There was an interesting article in the new issue of the New Yorker about the issue. The author wrote that fundamentally there is a cultural difference between Americans and Europeans that results in this different worldview. Americans tend to think that, when the two are in conflict, free speech is more important than privacy. Europeans believe the opposite. Those conflicting views are reflected in their laws. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644/60 "2014-09-28T02:20:05Z")
> [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](#): > > Is Google “forgetting” things only in countries where it is legally required to do so? If yes, then what’s to stop people in said country from plugging in a browser proxy and getting the information anyway I think the idea is to prevent casual browsers from easily finding the information. Determined searchers will always be able to find the information. For example, a simple search by a prospective employer won’t bring up an “irrelevant” arrest record if there was never a conviction. Most people won’t go through the trouble of using a proxy, or going to the main site, just to see if they’re missing something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-european-google-take-down-ruling/699644.md?page=4)