Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is It Fair To Force Google Into Being A Sensor?
20 Answers
http://
Surely it's not the job of search engines to supress data.
Surely it's not the job of search engines to supress data.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes, because Google is no longer "just a search engine" and hasn't been for a number of years. A lot of what it does (data collection in paticular) is highly questionable with regards to the uses it is put to. Personally, i woudn't touch anything to do with Google with your bargepole, let alone mine!
If information is still on the Net then it is not the job of a search engine, or even a search engine plus other stuff, to suppress the finding of it. It is up to the person who posted the information in conjunction with the ones hosting it, to remove stuff when sent a legitimate legal request to do so. Piggy in the Middle is an easy target when one can not be bothered to sort the real issue out.
A barking mad decision made by incompetent idiots.
> The search engine says it does not control data, it only offers links to information freely available on the internet.
It does both. It controls data in that if the #1 search result on a search for his name is "newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed", then that's a bit different to the same article being at #101. So the ranking algorithm, which definitely falls fully into Google's domain, has a part to play in the control of data.
BUT if the newspaper articles weren't out there, then Google would not be linking to them.
> The search engine says it does not control data, it only offers links to information freely available on the internet.
It does both. It controls data in that if the #1 search result on a search for his name is "newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed", then that's a bit different to the same article being at #101. So the ranking algorithm, which definitely falls fully into Google's domain, has a part to play in the control of data.
BUT if the newspaper articles weren't out there, then Google would not be linking to them.
I really cannot see how a search engine (and it wont be just Google affected by this) can be responsible for cr*p on the Internet.
Surely it should be the server with the data that is responsible, the search engines should only be responsible to maintaining good links, not giving search results without a valid link, which would be a good thing for everyone.
This rather smacks of the good old EU rearing its ugly head without thinking - as usual.
Surely it should be the server with the data that is responsible, the search engines should only be responsible to maintaining good links, not giving search results without a valid link, which would be a good thing for everyone.
This rather smacks of the good old EU rearing its ugly head without thinking - as usual.
if the newspaper articles weren't out there, then Google would not be linking to them
Not entirely - they link to a lot of cached stuff that isn't out there any more. In other words, they're not just searching, they're storing and republishing; and taking down stuff yourself won't stop Google continuing to hand out copies.
Not entirely - they link to a lot of cached stuff that isn't out there any more. In other words, they're not just searching, they're storing and republishing; and taking down stuff yourself won't stop Google continuing to hand out copies.
This is true. I made a website years ago, took it down, deleted it, I don't even have an account with that firm any more (the ones who suppled the server) and yet, if you know what to look for, a cached copy of that website can still be found. I don't care..its only some craft stuff I did, but I'd be annoyed if it was something personal.
The fact that the stuff is out there is also confirmed by things like the wayback machine
The fact that the stuff is out there is also confirmed by things like the wayback machine
> Not entirely - they link to a lot of cached stuff that isn't out there any more.
Google caches web pages, but after the original web page is taken down, the Google cached copy will disappear some time later. i.e. Google does not keep copies of pages available that it knows no longer exist. If it did, it would knowingly be sending searchers to "Error 404" pages, and that wouldn't be a good searcher experience. It does not do that. This ruling isn't about cached pages, it's about links to actual pages on the web.
> The fact that the stuff is out there is also confirmed by things like the wayback machine
No, the wayback machine has its own cached copy, and Google does not index that. In other words, you won't find things that are only in the wayback machine in Google's search results.
That's not to say generally that Google won't index some other cached copy but when, it comes down to it, in many cases there's little difference between a cached copy and the original. If you're searching for something, and Google knows a page that's relevant, it may well recommend that page and that's what Google's searchers want it to do.
What this case is really about is WHERE in the search results a particular page is listed, as if these newspaper articles were not so prominent it wouldn't really be an issue. The guy is saying "Newspaper articles from 16 years ago aren't really that relevant." His problem is that he hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy since. If there were over 100 more recent, more "relevant", results for his name then his past misdemeanours would be buried.
Google caches web pages, but after the original web page is taken down, the Google cached copy will disappear some time later. i.e. Google does not keep copies of pages available that it knows no longer exist. If it did, it would knowingly be sending searchers to "Error 404" pages, and that wouldn't be a good searcher experience. It does not do that. This ruling isn't about cached pages, it's about links to actual pages on the web.
> The fact that the stuff is out there is also confirmed by things like the wayback machine
No, the wayback machine has its own cached copy, and Google does not index that. In other words, you won't find things that are only in the wayback machine in Google's search results.
That's not to say generally that Google won't index some other cached copy but when, it comes down to it, in many cases there's little difference between a cached copy and the original. If you're searching for something, and Google knows a page that's relevant, it may well recommend that page and that's what Google's searchers want it to do.
What this case is really about is WHERE in the search results a particular page is listed, as if these newspaper articles were not so prominent it wouldn't really be an issue. The guy is saying "Newspaper articles from 16 years ago aren't really that relevant." His problem is that he hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy since. If there were over 100 more recent, more "relevant", results for his name then his past misdemeanours would be buried.
If there is a copy of the site that woofgang published somewhere else on the Web - related issues ...
a) who is paying for that copy to be hosted?
b) whose copyright is it?
... but Google will index that copy. Woofgang's issue, if any, is with the person who is hosting the copy. Otherwise, Google could remove their "link" to that copy, but that doesn't stop the copy being seen by other means.
a) who is paying for that copy to be hosted?
b) whose copyright is it?
... but Google will index that copy. Woofgang's issue, if any, is with the person who is hosting the copy. Otherwise, Google could remove their "link" to that copy, but that doesn't stop the copy being seen by other means.
it's not the judges' job to sort it out. Their job is to rule on whether laws are being broken. It's now Google's job to find a way of not breaking the law.
As a small-time family history browser, I obviously regret this; the internet has thrown up an interesting selection of misdemeanours by my forebears.
As a small-time family history browser, I obviously regret this; the internet has thrown up an interesting selection of misdemeanours by my forebears.
> it's not the judges' job to sort it out. Their job is to rule on whether laws are being broken. It's now Google's job to find a way of not breaking the law.
From everything I've read, there isn't even a law. It's disingenuous to say it's not the judges job to sort it out. They've created a mess by making a poorly informed decision. This decision should not simply be accepted, it should be challenged and their crass stupidity needs to be pointed out.
This decision is akin to the Chinese government demanding Google does not link to Falun Gong sites - full on censorship. In a way this decision is even worse than that. Falun Gong content is illegal in China. But in this case, the demand is to stop links to perfectly legal news articles. It's just stupid.
By extension, we should not be allowed to link to the news articles here on AnswerBank, either ... as WE would then be breaching his privacy, exactly analogous to Google. It makes no sense. Clearly, if anything is breaching his privacy, it's the continued presence of the articles themselves.
From everything I've read, there isn't even a law. It's disingenuous to say it's not the judges job to sort it out. They've created a mess by making a poorly informed decision. This decision should not simply be accepted, it should be challenged and their crass stupidity needs to be pointed out.
This decision is akin to the Chinese government demanding Google does not link to Falun Gong sites - full on censorship. In a way this decision is even worse than that. Falun Gong content is illegal in China. But in this case, the demand is to stop links to perfectly legal news articles. It's just stupid.
By extension, we should not be allowed to link to the news articles here on AnswerBank, either ... as WE would then be breaching his privacy, exactly analogous to Google. It makes no sense. Clearly, if anything is breaching his privacy, it's the continued presence of the articles themselves.
This is a terrible decision and I am sure they know the consequences.
The case was brought by a Spaniard who complained that if people searched on the internet they could find out his house had been reposed and sold at aution. He argued that was bad for his business and so he should have the right to have any reference to his poor financial acumen should be permanently erased from searches. Strangely, the EU agreed with him.
I could understand this if it was about lies being perpetuated or trying to stop smear campaigns or other malicious rumour. But it isn't. The Spaniard was trying (and seemingly) succeeded in removing a piece of truth from the internet. A peice of information that may act as a warning to innocent people doing business with him.
Of course, such a power is useful to shifty Spaniard businessmen, but even more useful to lying politicians, unscrupilous multinationals and crooks.
The case was brought by a Spaniard who complained that if people searched on the internet they could find out his house had been reposed and sold at aution. He argued that was bad for his business and so he should have the right to have any reference to his poor financial acumen should be permanently erased from searches. Strangely, the EU agreed with him.
I could understand this if it was about lies being perpetuated or trying to stop smear campaigns or other malicious rumour. But it isn't. The Spaniard was trying (and seemingly) succeeded in removing a piece of truth from the internet. A peice of information that may act as a warning to innocent people doing business with him.
Of course, such a power is useful to shifty Spaniard businessmen, but even more useful to lying politicians, unscrupilous multinationals and crooks.
// Hundreds of people including an ex-politician seeking re-election, a paedophile and a doctor have applied to have details about them wiped from Google's search index since a landmark ruling in Europe on Tuesday.
The deluge of claims trying to exercise the "right to be forgotten" follows a decision by Europe's highest court, which said that in some cases the right to privacy of individuals outweighs the freedom of search engines to link to information about them although the information itself can remain on web pages.
The Guardian understands that the applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant including, in the UK, a former politician who is now seeking office and wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index, while a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.
In total hundreds of people have made claims across Europe since the ruling was released on Tuesday morning. //
The deluge of claims trying to exercise the "right to be forgotten" follows a decision by Europe's highest court, which said that in some cases the right to privacy of individuals outweighs the freedom of search engines to link to information about them although the information itself can remain on web pages.
The Guardian understands that the applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant including, in the UK, a former politician who is now seeking office and wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index, while a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.
In total hundreds of people have made claims across Europe since the ruling was released on Tuesday morning. //
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
How it Works69 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles134 mins ago
I Am Supposed To To What I Am Told
Body & Soul209 mins ago
ChatterBank214 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.