
‘Right to be forgotten’ used to force Google to remove medical negligence link - carlio
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/22/18192626/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-dutch-surgeon-medical-negligence
======
falcolas
Seems to me like a legitimate usecase. It involves the judgement by a panel of
medical experts, in addition to a court judgement.

"The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to
the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the
blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not
supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings."

~~~
gumby
Still, if that site is unfairly pejorative, isn't that the site that should
receive the takedown restriction? Google supposedly+ just reflects the nature
of what others are saying.

\+ yes I know there's a lot of wiggle in the "supposedly" but the principle
seems clear.

~~~
dahfizz
Yeah, it seems like this ruling is wanting Google to become the police of the
internet: burrying things the government doesn't like and only showing what
they do like. I don't think that's a good thing.

------
disgruntledphd2
The Guardian link has more details:
[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/21/dutch-
sur...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/21/dutch-surgeon-wins-
landmark-right-to-be-forgotten-case-google)

~~~
hyperman1
Not much more details, unfortunately.

What exactly was the error, how long ago has it been done, has the problem
been corrected, what did the blacklist say about this person, and did it match
reality?

The judgement was probably reasonable, based on my experience with the courts.
But there are not enough facts in these 2 articles for us to form a reasonable
opinion.

~~~
mdekkers
You can find some more information (in Dutch) at the below address. In short,
the Dr. made some errors in a patient's aftercare, which lead to the
probation. The lawyer of the Dr. argued that anyone on the Internet is free to
attack this person, but due to patient/doctor confidentiality, the Dr. isn't
free to respond.

[https://nos.nl/artikel/2267951-rechter-laat-google-
zoekresul...](https://nos.nl/artikel/2267951-rechter-laat-google-
zoekresultaten-schrappen-over-berispte-arts.html)

------
onetimemanytime
Let's take the worst accusation: child molestation. If one is found not guilty
after his name was all over the media, his life is really ruined. Yes, he was
accused, arrested and tried and these are facts, but they also ruin his life
even 25 years later. We must balance the two.

~~~
DoctorOetker
I'm not convinced: consider a second child victim of the same perpetrator, if
someday (s)he reads a clearer distinction or argumentation of what constitutes
what, and decides to google the perpetrator's name (in case he was already
convicted for a similar count) (s)he would be able to verify that, and it may
convince the victim to come forward if (s)he perceives the probability of
suing to be higher (otherwise the victim just risks losing money, credibility,
... but most of all his/her faith in society)

~~~
onetimemanytime
In my case he arrested but wasn't convicted. The mere fact that he was
arrested and shows up in Google for ever means his life is ruined. Even if
guilty, for a lot of crimes there needs to be a redo thing; like bankruptcy
that doesn't show after 7 years in credit report (mostly)

~~~
DoctorOetker
I don't believe in censorship, note that such things can amount to destruction
of evidence...

------
defertoreptar
Maybe I just have a bad understanding of this law, but why stop with the
internet? If a citizen has the right to be forgotten, then what about old
newspapers stored on microfilm in libraries? Why not let citizens force
librarians into censoring these documents, like some classified document from
the CIA?

Maybe it's only the right to be forgotten when it's perceived as "easy" to
erase something or easy to access something? Seems contrived.

~~~
hopler
It's not really a right to be "forgotten". it's a right to not have a minor,
old incident be the most prominently promoted info about you.

