Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Wouldn't that be in opposition to the spirit of the law, if they just moved the removed results to a second search engine?



E.g. BBC publishes/used to publish the list of their pages that were removed from Google search results for this reason:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f...

Not sure if there's any more recent version of that page.



That's really interesting that they publish that information.

The top of the list is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6965657.stm; presumably any of the people mentioned, including in the comments, might be responsible for the right-to-be-forgotten request to Google.

What's more curious, to me, is that several of the BBC's list are references to a series of articles on 3 students, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3500850.stm.

Now if you Google any of those 3 students, https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Abbc.co.uk+"nikki+ho... then that page, that BBC say is hidden in Google SERPs, appears?? Did someone mess up. Google does say "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.", however.

Similarly, this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/4747988.stm is listed on that BBC page, but searching the main name and "BBC" brings up that same page as the first result; again the "Some results may have been removed [...]" text is given.

Bit weird?


I'm all for the freedom of speech in the American sense of the phrase (probably in the extreme considering many of the comments here). However, I don't think that means we should always exercise that right; this is where I think norms shine. I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing this data such as you have (though I'd never want to try and legally prevent it; it's your choice).

I think some of us that have had the foresight to prevent such things as in the OP from ever possibly being an issue in our lives might forget the rational decisions made in ignorance or a moment of exuberance (i.e haste).

Still, the internet is global and laws are regional, so ineffective legislation is a waste of time.

[Not going to get into P2P tech that is still un-censorable]


>I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing this data such as you have //

I hesitated, the BBC page will be an ocean of views compared to the puddle of view this thread gets ... I didn't follow the details for other posts, concerning crimes. The cited post looks like it was probably to hide what's essentially normal student behaviours (though one can't be sure). At least there's nothing intrinsic that seems worthy of censoring.

What it does shine a light on for me is how very bland information about us that we share might become a source of regret later in life.


Not that i believe brexit will happen, but if it does, i'd guess those pages can be relisted.


It's called google.com. But seriously, Google has a pretty passive-aggressive approach to complying with laws they don't like, such as publishing all DMCA takedown requests.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: