Crosswords1 min ago
Censored By The Eu
Under EU privacy legislation, if ypu have done something wrong, and that naughtiness meant a news story was written about you, you now have a right to be forgotten. You can demand that news stories in the public domain are censorred on search engines, meaning it is almost impossible to find them.
So if you have an embarrassing conviction for Insider Dealing, don't worry. The EU will let you demand that the news is hidden from anyone who might be interested, and your dodgy past can appear unblemished again.
Here is a list of BBC news reports that the EU have censorred from search results.
http://
There are a lot of them. Censorship on an industrial scale.
So if you have an embarrassing conviction for Insider Dealing, don't worry. The EU will let you demand that the news is hidden from anyone who might be interested, and your dodgy past can appear unblemished again.
Here is a list of BBC news reports that the EU have censorred from search results.
http://
There are a lot of them. Censorship on an industrial scale.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. 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.
I don't think the EU do the censoring, you have to ask Google to do it yourself. So it's not on an industrial scale, it's just one shyster at a time.
The Telegraph also has a list
http://
The Telegraph also has a list
http://
It isn't new and the reports are still out there, just harder to track down.
https:/
https:/
I've not followed this so called right to be forgotten too closely, I always felt it was the sites making the info available that one should be dealing with, if there is a case to remove information, not a search engine. But surely by demanding it is a legal requirement the EU are effectively doing the censoring, even if it is by proxy with folk making their own requests and the search engine company obliged to comply ?
The "right to be forgotten" is classic EU bureaucracy. This policy makes them look like idiots.
> surely by demanding it is a legal requirement the EU are effectively doing the censoring
Correct but they don't see it as censoring, they see it as protection of privacy.
But what is a search engine?
* Google?
* Bing?
* http://
* http://
The EU, and France in particular, seem fixated on Google. Sooner or later the EU's "privacy" attitude and the United States' "freedom of speech" attitude are going to unavoidably collide in this area.
> surely by demanding it is a legal requirement the EU are effectively doing the censoring
Correct but they don't see it as censoring, they see it as protection of privacy.
But what is a search engine?
* Google?
* Bing?
* http://
* http://
The EU, and France in particular, seem fixated on Google. Sooner or later the EU's "privacy" attitude and the United States' "freedom of speech" attitude are going to unavoidably collide in this area.
Mamya
Although the WWW was invented by a Brit, the English-speaking and/or western Web is dominated by the Americans so their rules tend to apply.
Under the EU's and France's desired system:
* a French publisher could publish something about a convicted French child abuser on a French website
* the French child abuser may take offence at this and, rather than asking the French publisher to remove it from their French website, through the EU ruling they can ask Google not to tell anybody in Europe about it
* Google complies with that ruling
* the French authorities are now saying that does not go far enough. They want Google to not tell anybody in the world about it - i.e. an American searcher, searching the American search engine Google, should not be told about something published on an American website if it names that French person.
Perhaps the French would rather ban Google and use their own search engines, that comply by their own rules. The danger for us here in the UK is that, given these are European laws, what Europe wants may end up significantly affecting our choice of search engines.
Although the WWW was invented by a Brit, the English-speaking and/or western Web is dominated by the Americans so their rules tend to apply.
Under the EU's and France's desired system:
* a French publisher could publish something about a convicted French child abuser on a French website
* the French child abuser may take offence at this and, rather than asking the French publisher to remove it from their French website, through the EU ruling they can ask Google not to tell anybody in Europe about it
* Google complies with that ruling
* the French authorities are now saying that does not go far enough. They want Google to not tell anybody in the world about it - i.e. an American searcher, searching the American search engine Google, should not be told about something published on an American website if it names that French person.
Perhaps the French would rather ban Google and use their own search engines, that comply by their own rules. The danger for us here in the UK is that, given these are European laws, what Europe wants may end up significantly affecting our choice of search engines.
brionon> "How many times do you lot need to be told that the European Court is NOT the EU ? "
That is why such 'dumbed-down' Labelling is so convenient to its detractors and conflates the issue, which is why they ( Telegraph in this case in jno's Link ,MainStreamMedia, politicians and a myriad of other manipulators ) employ it:
https:/
I went through about half of the Links on Gromit's http://
Of course there are numerous other search engines than Google:
https:/
... if that is not a radical, Lefty, socialist,Trade Unionist, Marxist, curtain twitching, hoodie, pc, youghurt-eating, tree-hugging and geeky step too far for you.
That is why such 'dumbed-down' Labelling is so convenient to its detractors and conflates the issue, which is why they ( Telegraph in this case in jno's Link ,MainStreamMedia, politicians and a myriad of other manipulators ) employ it:
https:/
I went through about half of the Links on Gromit's http://
Of course there are numerous other search engines than Google:
https:/
... if that is not a radical, Lefty, socialist,Trade Unionist, Marxist, curtain twitching, hoodie, pc, youghurt-eating, tree-hugging and geeky step too far for you.
SevenOP
Here is the removal request form from Microsoft's Bing search...
https:/
Here is the removal request form from Microsoft's Bing search...
https:/
Are these search engines? ...
* http://
* http://
Hint: yes they are. Probably more people use those site search engines than many of the smaller, dedicated search engines.
It's a bit ridiculous if you can go to the BBC website, search for a name and find an article that you won't find listed in Google, even though Google has seen the article.
It's also a bit ridiculous if you can go to the BBC website, search for a name and NOT find an article that exists on the website.
This goes to demonstrate that the issue, if any, is with the article, not the search engine.
> I don't think the EU do the censoring, you have to ask Google to do it yourself.
The point is that EU/Court/"Europe" has provided the legal framework for this censorship to take place. You have to ask "Why?", especially in cases where the information being censored is truthful and in the public domain.
* http://
* http://
Hint: yes they are. Probably more people use those site search engines than many of the smaller, dedicated search engines.
It's a bit ridiculous if you can go to the BBC website, search for a name and find an article that you won't find listed in Google, even though Google has seen the article.
It's also a bit ridiculous if you can go to the BBC website, search for a name and NOT find an article that exists on the website.
This goes to demonstrate that the issue, if any, is with the article, not the search engine.
> I don't think the EU do the censoring, you have to ask Google to do it yourself.
The point is that EU/Court/"Europe" has provided the legal framework for this censorship to take place. You have to ask "Why?", especially in cases where the information being censored is truthful and in the public domain.
you can read a fairly persuasive explanation of "why" here
http://
http://
Not persuasive to me, and rather a strange article for the Guardian to be publishing considering the low opinion it casts on all forms of journalism:
----------------------------------------------------------
These examples shine a light on the very problem that the right to be forgotten in part addresses, even if only imperfectly (other solutions could have been, and should still be, explored). Journalistic logic is curiously asymmetrical. “Dog bites man” is not news; “man bites dog” most certainly is. Similarly, arrests are more newsworthy than exculpations.
If the former nanny, or the rapist’s friend, are otherwise unremarkable, publication by a reputable press outlet will rocket to the top of their results, and effectively stay forever. Acquittals, and people moving on with their lives, are boring – they are not news, and they are rarely reported with the same intensity as crimes, arrests and convictions. And court records are often not online or readily searchable.
So what’s the result, in the imperfect mirror of reality that is the web? Next time you search for these people – or a potential employer or possible date does, as we all do – these results come up.
----------------------------------------------------------
I presume the Guardian is aware that, since it uses Google Custom Search as its site search engine, articles it publishes are freely available to American searchers, but filtered when searched in Europe! Given this, I would like to know what the Guardian itself is doing to counteract this "asymmetric journalistic logic". Do they publish acquittals and apologies with as much intensity and prominence as their original article? Do they go back and edit or remove articles? Do they take active steps to prevent certain articles being indexed by search engines? Are they actively campaigning to encourage other reputable journalistic outlets to do likewise? Or do they leave it all to Europe and Google to clean up after their mess, and not worry about what the rest of the world can see?
The right to be forgotten is an anachronism. The world has changed. The Internet has happened, the Web has happened, search engines have happened, social media has happened, and that there are consequences.
People need to get used to the idea that not everything they read on the Internet is true, or things that were true when published may no longer be true. One bad review of a hotel doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't go there. One ill-thought-through comment on Facebook doesn't mean you should terminate a lifelong friendship. And one mention of a name in an old newspaper article isn't enough to ruin somebody's reputation today.
To attack Google and other search engines is to attack completely the wrong thing. Google is simply the medium that introduces the journalist to the reader. The root problems lie with (some) journalism and the mindsets of (some) readers. Both of these need to be changed, if we are to grow with the Internet and have access to all that it offers, rather than limit ourselves by retaining some kind of default privacy offered by the past, which seemed to have been based on not having instant access to the information that was in the public domain.
----------------------------------------------------------
These examples shine a light on the very problem that the right to be forgotten in part addresses, even if only imperfectly (other solutions could have been, and should still be, explored). Journalistic logic is curiously asymmetrical. “Dog bites man” is not news; “man bites dog” most certainly is. Similarly, arrests are more newsworthy than exculpations.
If the former nanny, or the rapist’s friend, are otherwise unremarkable, publication by a reputable press outlet will rocket to the top of their results, and effectively stay forever. Acquittals, and people moving on with their lives, are boring – they are not news, and they are rarely reported with the same intensity as crimes, arrests and convictions. And court records are often not online or readily searchable.
So what’s the result, in the imperfect mirror of reality that is the web? Next time you search for these people – or a potential employer or possible date does, as we all do – these results come up.
----------------------------------------------------------
I presume the Guardian is aware that, since it uses Google Custom Search as its site search engine, articles it publishes are freely available to American searchers, but filtered when searched in Europe! Given this, I would like to know what the Guardian itself is doing to counteract this "asymmetric journalistic logic". Do they publish acquittals and apologies with as much intensity and prominence as their original article? Do they go back and edit or remove articles? Do they take active steps to prevent certain articles being indexed by search engines? Are they actively campaigning to encourage other reputable journalistic outlets to do likewise? Or do they leave it all to Europe and Google to clean up after their mess, and not worry about what the rest of the world can see?
The right to be forgotten is an anachronism. The world has changed. The Internet has happened, the Web has happened, search engines have happened, social media has happened, and that there are consequences.
People need to get used to the idea that not everything they read on the Internet is true, or things that were true when published may no longer be true. One bad review of a hotel doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't go there. One ill-thought-through comment on Facebook doesn't mean you should terminate a lifelong friendship. And one mention of a name in an old newspaper article isn't enough to ruin somebody's reputation today.
To attack Google and other search engines is to attack completely the wrong thing. Google is simply the medium that introduces the journalist to the reader. The root problems lie with (some) journalism and the mindsets of (some) readers. Both of these need to be changed, if we are to grow with the Internet and have access to all that it offers, rather than limit ourselves by retaining some kind of default privacy offered by the past, which seemed to have been based on not having instant access to the information that was in the public domain.
1 to 20 of 20
