The Streisand effect probably can't survive when there's 50k-100k examples a month. People can't pay attention to that many examples.
The Streisand effect probably can't survive when there's 50k-100k examples a month. People can't pay attention to that many examples.
No, which is why I purposely limited this to public figures. The population in general isn't going to give a rats ass if some nobody finally found a way to remove incorrect or irrelevant info about them from the top of google's search results.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
There are a lot of public figures. Do we have anywhere cataloging every take-down that happens? Who's going to go through and monitor these lists for interesting takedowns? Do you really think this won't generate enough 'interesting' takedowns that people stop paying attention to them completely?
I was thinking about this, and I don't see why something like this won't crop up eventually. Google publishes DMCA requests, why not these? They are already making public the most popular reasons for removal requests.Originally Posted by Wraith
Sounds like a standard wiki fetishWho's going to go through and monitor these lists for interesting takedowns?
eh, I think there will always be a group of people thats paying attention, and thus making the info accessible once again.Do you really think this won't generate enough 'interesting' takedowns that people stop paying attention to them completely?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm going to divert here: Why is "there's ways to get around it" a reason to support a law? If getting around the law is seen as good, then isn't that law a bad thing?
Google can't do this themselves. They'll get their asses fined off. They're already flirting with massive fines by interpreting the law so narrowly and only removing hits from very specific search results.
That's not the Streisand effect, though. Merely accessible isn't enough for that, it also has to be significantly unusual enough to capture and hold interest in spheres that wouldn't normally be interested. With 100k take downs a month, nothing is going to be able to stick out that much except for the groups who already cared anyways.eh, I think there will always be a group of people thats paying attention, and thus making the info accessible once again.
There are ways around people abusing the law. I think the intent to remove easy access to incorrect or irrelevant information is noble considering how easily the internet can ruin a person. As your article mentions this is the teething phase so there are going to be challenges and hiccups.
Then the sites themselves will do it. BBC just showed how powerful that was. I'd love to see a page of information relating to what articles have been removed (wikipedia is already doing it), and its easy enough to see why that would be protected from a 2nd request for removal.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I hope some of these requests were made by news industry insiders so that we can get a nice battle going
I also hope the blithering idiots that represent the racist and xenophobic parties in Sweden make extensive use of this new right so that they can be exposed for the hypocritical free-speech-hating cretins they are
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not sure how we can speak of a teething phase unless we believe it's likely that this will be modified and refined over time through future work by legislators and by the courts.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The courts for sure. The BBC is waiting to see how they can challenge, and sooner or later people will go after Google for denying a request (which will create better guidelines), or as Wraith already pointed out for making the process so time consuming.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That means the battle will have to be fought in every single member state separately, with differring outcomes.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
There are a whole lot of take-downs, material covering famous people or other topics people would be interested in, that never get brought up at all. Sometimes things grab at the collective consciousness of the internet population. More often they don't. There's a lot more potential memetic activity than realized memetic activity.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28130581
article is not being removed from search results because of the content, but is being removed from search results if you search for one of the commenters names. While I think there is a line the public may one day have to address concerning having something from your tween or teen years dog you online for the rest of your life....this is not that.
name and comment in question:
At 11:32 AM on 29 Oct 2007, Peter Dragomer wrote: Amazing ! as an ex ML employee I would never have thought any serious financial institution could get themselves into this kind of a mess, as ML has some the top analysts and brains in the industry...well, they deserve it if the idea was to push these repackaged loans as securities. I can only say that apart from Stan, the Global Head of Sales and cronies also need to be pushed out. Whoever signed off the credit risk on these instruments definately needs head chopping as well. In a sad kind of way, am glad I got out when I did, and hopefully this backfire explosion in the face of those responsible for the debacle will have taught the new Institutional Sales force generation not to have as a mantra "greed is good"...otherwise they are deluded.
was something of value lost?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Several of the commenter's names cause it (Derek Farmer is another one that triggers. Other full names I tried didn't hit the article at all - try Oren Vinishavsky). It also triggers for the subject of the article. How is this not worse? It means that someone can get an article pulled that has nothing to do with them merely by commenting on it!
Are you volunteering to go through every single takedown and ensure nothing of value was lost? Who can really judge if something of value is lost, anyways? Maybe something has no value to you, but that doesn't mean it has no value to anyone, ever.
And I think government-mandated censorship of the internet that can easily be invoked by anyone, anywhere is a terrible idea.
BBC's is only getting traction because it was one of the first. One of the first - notice all the other ones that happened today that nobody's really noticing - the second article I posted above listed a few. That's going to be the standard going forward.Then the sites themselves will do it. BBC just showed how powerful that was. I'd love to see a page of information relating to what articles have been removed (wikipedia is already doing it), and its easy enough to see why that would be protected from a 2nd request for removal.
If you're googling for articles based on commenters handles, you're doing it very very wrong.
The ruling puts this squarely on the shoulders on the search engine, for right or wrong. They are the ones profiting from it after all.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Yes, I remember this game from the times it's been done in the past. It ends with massive fines for the company, because they didn't comply with the court's secret rules about how to do things, doesn't it?Oh, well if they've ever made money, that makes it all okay then. They should totally be censoring the internet. Objection withdrawn.They are the ones profiting from it after all.
Its how the EU is. Privacy over profit. Google might be big, but they aren't the internet. yet
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Privacy isn't the Internet either. Google supporting a free exchange of uncensored information is far more traditional Internet - and as has been aptly pointed out by others the almost certain future of it - than this so called privacy.
I like the double-speak inherent in calling something that was not said in private "privacy".
Hope is the denial of reality
This is like watching someone being forced to shit in public with a million cameras on them, trying to smile while they do it.
We need to talk about the right to be forgotten
After the European court ruling, we at Google want to encourage debate on where the public interest lies in restricting web searches
When you search online there's an unwritten assumption that you'll get an instant answer, as well as additional information if you need to dig deeper. This is all possible because of two decades' worth of investment and innovation by many different companies. Today, however, search engines across Europe face a new challenge – one we've had just two months to get our heads around. That challenge is figuring out what information we must deliberately omit from our results, following a ruling from the European Union's court of justice.
In the past we've restricted the removals we make from search to a very short list. It includes information deemed illegal by a court (such as defamation), pirated content (once we're notified by the right's holder), malware, personal information such as bank details, child sexual abuse imagery and other things prohibited by local law (such as material that glorifies Nazism in Germany).
We've taken this approach because, as article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
But the European court found that people have the right to ask for information to be removed from search results that include their names if it is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive". In deciding what to remove search engines must also have regard to the public interest. These are, of course, very vague and subjective tests.
The court also decided that search engines don't qualify for a "journalistic exception". This means that the Guardian could have an article on its website about an individual that's perfectly legal, but we might not legally be able to show links to it in our results when you search for that person's name. It's a bit like saying the book can stay in the library but cannot be included in the library's card catalogue.
It's for these reasons that we disagree with the ruling. That said, we obviously respect the court's authority and are doing our very best to comply quickly and responsibly. It's a huge task, as we've had over 70,000 take-down requests covering 250,000 web pages since May. So we now have a team of people reviewing each application individually, in most cases with limited information and almost no context.
The examples we've seen so far highlight the difficult value judgments search engines and European society now face: former politicians wanting posts removed that criticise their policies in office; serious, violent criminals asking for articles about their crimes to be deleted; bad reviews for professionals like architects and teachers; comments that people have written themselves (and now regret). In each case someone wants the information hidden, while others might argue that it should be out in the open.
When it comes to determining what's in the public interest, we're taking into account a number of factors. These include whether the information relates to a politician, celebrity or other public figure; if the material comes from a reputable news source, and how recent it is; whether it involves political speech; questions of professional conduct that might be relevant to consumers; the involvement of criminal convictions that are not yet "spent"; and if the information is being published by a government. But these will always be difficult and debatable judgments.
We're also doing our best to be transparent about removals: for instance, we're informing websites when one of their pages has been removed. But we cannot be specific about why we have removed the information, because that could violate an individual's privacy rights under the court's decision.
Of course, only two months in our process is still very much a work in progress. It's why we incorrectly removed links to some articles last week (they've since been reinstated). But the good news is that the ongoing, active debate that's happening will inform the development of our principles, policies and practices – in particular about how to balance one person's right to privacy with another's right to know.
That's why we have also set up an advisory council of experts, the final membership of which we are announcing tomorrow. These external experts from the worlds of academia, the media, data protection, civil society and the tech sector are serving as independent advisers to Google. The council will be asking for evidence and recommendations from different groups, and will hold public meetings this autumn across Europe to examine these issues more deeply.
The experts' public report will include recommendations for particularly difficult removal requests (such as criminal convictions); thoughts on the implications of the court's decision for European internet users, news publishers, search engines and others; and procedural steps that could improve accountability and transparency for websites and citizens.
The issues at stake here are important and difficult, but we're committed to complying with the court's decision. Indeed, it's hard not to empathise with some of the requests that we've seen – from the man who asked that we do not show a news article saying that he had been questioned in connection with a crime (he's able to demonstrate that he was never charged) to the mother who requested that we remove news articles for her daughter's name as she had been the victim of abuse.
It's a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-google-debate
Thought it'd be relevant, but a Dutch court just ruled Google can show links to a story about a guy ordering a murder, which happens in the book but never happened in reality (he was arrested and convicted for ordering the murder). According to the judge, being convicted of a serious crime is 'lasting relevant information '.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
That's indeed relevant.So I suppose each country will now start making their own definition of relevant?
Ianal, so I don't know how rulings influence or bind eachother. But I imagine the Spanish ruling set one end of the law (I.e. what does have to be removed) and this one what shouldn't. There's an obvious difference between the Spanish guy and this guy, as this guy actually was convicted.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
It looks like we're going towards a world where governments will get to decide what information about individuals should be publicly accessible and which should not be. It's not like governments would ever abuse this kind of power or anything.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm sure private corporations would do a much better job at deciding that. It's not like corporations would ever abuse this power, or anything, since corporations are people.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Corporations try it = they get sued. What happens if the government tries it?
Hope is the denial of reality
Corporations get sued = they give enough shush money to make it go away; they leverage the SCOTUS to agree with them. I thought mister Boehner was busy with suing the government, I guess that's a fluke?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
You realize we're talking about Europe here, right?
Oh, so US corporations are special, then? Or was that US governance?
edit: because brother Low-key sure seemed to be speaking in absolutes, I admit perhaps I misjudged his racist prejudice????
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Oh wow, Europe though. Sorry Low-key, I admit defeat here, there's way too many Somalis around and about the destroy law and orderI wish you better luck in the US!
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote