
Times Articles Removed from Google Results in Europe - mcgwiz
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/04/business/media/times-articles-removed-from-google-results-in-europe.html
======
qiqing
How long will it be before right-to-be-forgotten infrastructure becomes abused
for something like taking down a competitor's visibility?

I wonder.

~~~
ergzay
I think that's already happened. I can't turn up the article right now, but I
saw an article talking about exactly that recently.

~~~
mrkickling
Maybe the article was also removed from google

------
revelation
I'm a bit baffled at Googles implementation here. They have turned a single
decision (though at a high court) into a seemingly automated process where
everyone can have stuff removed that just mentions their name by filling out
some web form:

[https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=we...](https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch)

Theres no obligation to go that far. Make people pay a lawyer when they want
to get something removed.

Basically, treat it as the DMCA requests: remove the stuff and post the full
request on a ChillingEffects-like site, and hint at that when a search
included removed results.

~~~
andreasvc
An automated process is cheaper than dealing with lawyers. It could also be
that Google made it this easy in order to make a point that the law is a bad
idea.

~~~
icelancer
Likely parts of both. If they want human involvement (like the government will
probably eventually request), the bureaucracy's budget can pay for it.

------
josephlord
When one of the early apparently outrageous cases of removal came out I was
critical of Google removing stuff that seemed completely appropriate but it
turned out that the removal wasn't of terms related to the person in the
article but was one of the commenters. As such I reversed my position and
apologised to Google.

I haven't investi these removals but wanted to share my experience of jumping
to conclusions that Google wasn't making appropriate judgements. Without
looking closely I would now tend to give Google the benefit of the doubt on
these judgement issues (and I really don't trust Google on other things such
as privacy).

------
nraynaud
It's strange to have articles about suicides, prevention, and getting help
next to articles that are actively trying put peoples back in a past they
would like to have a break with.

~~~
eplanit
To "like to have a break with" is quite different than to force the world to
censor, or a claim a right to control recorded history.

~~~
nraynaud
it's not censorship, the story is still in the archives, it's still on the
web, it's just not broadcast on google.

------
stuaxo
That was a bit confusing, here The Times is not the NY Times...

[http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/?CMP=INTstp2](http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/?CMP=INTstp2)

------
golemotron
Doesn't the ability to do this sort of thing interfere with the notion of
Google being a safe harbor in the US? They are now curating content.

~~~
sunir
They are not curating it. They are responding to lawful requests from others.

------
lotsofmangos
Congratulations to the EU courts. Through great skill and determination they
have managed to construct the world's first self-Streisanding privacy law.

~~~
Luc
> Since May, when the European high court made its initial decision on the
> right to be forgotten, Google has received roughly 140,000 privacy requests
> connected to more than 500,000 links, according to the company’s top lawyer.
> So far, the search giant has approved around half of the requests.

One in 70,000 is a rather low Streisand concentration...

~~~
rbehrends
Yes. The Streisand effect doesn't really scale.

~~~
lotsofmangos
If you confined the search to newspapers, you could construct a live list of
article availability vs territory for all the major search engines. I'm
actually quite surprised that there isn't one already.

~~~
rbehrends
You could, but the inherent limitation of the Streisand effect is that both
media and public attention are finite resources.

You can focus media/public attention on at best a few individuals and have it
be effective. Have tens of thousands, and the effect is too diluted to be
meaningful.

------
logicalman
I don't think this policy is bad for the EU. Google will remove articles
faster than publications can notice and report on their removal. Most EU
citizens will not care enough to use non-EU Google sites on a regular basis.

~~~
andreasvc
I don't follow, do your arguments make this kind of frivolous censorship any
less ridiculous?

~~~
logicalman
The censorship is frivolous but effective. I should have said "I don't think
this policy is bad for the EU government."

------
RichardFord
_Unlike in the United States, where freedom of expression is a fundamental
right that supersedes other interests, Europe views an individual’s privacy
and freedom of expression as almost equal rights._

Except everybody knows that the right privacy is not the reason. EUrocrats
needed to use subterfuge as an opening salvo for the beginnings of censorship,
so this is what they came up with.

But there's no surprise that NYT would give the EU the benefit of the doubt,
since they tend to fawn all over whatever wacky EU policies are implemented
anyway.

~~~
glasz
as you can see, the naivety of the avg hn ready confirms the points you made
by down voting. if they'd live in the eu or at least open their swollen-by-
intellect minds, they'd see through the charade.

having said that, i also have an issue with your comment: everybody does NOT
know.

~~~
corin_
Another user already replied to your parent so I won't repeat the argument but
just a note: I downvoted him and I'm English, not everyone (or even most) in
the EU think like you, and it's misleading to imply to Americans/others that
we do.

