Don't google me, bro

[Jarhyn]

http://cir.ca/s/B6N

Europe's top court has ruled in favor of privacy as regulators are overhauling European data protection laws.

So, now we can finally strip ourselves from google's spotlight. While I like this for 'private persons' I can't help but think that this will have a negative impact in regards to public and influential persons who wish to escape media attention. Thoughts?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I have no problem if someone Googles me. But I can see where it would be a problem for the falsely accused.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The court said that people have the right to request removal of information that is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant."

Well, who decides what is irrelevant? Relevant to what?

If someone went bankrupt twelve years ago, that may not be relevant if he's trying to sell me a car. But if he's offering to invest money for me, that might be something i'd want to know.

And if John Smith asks that Google not return any links for his irrelevant articles, does that mean i can't search ANY "John Smith"? What about John, Smith? And what about Smith?

I'm not sure how this can be implemented in any reasonable way.

 

[Bronzeage]

The court said that people have the right to request removal of information that is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant."

Well, who decides what is irrelevant? Relevant to what?

If someone went bankrupt twelve years ago, that may not be relevant if he's trying to sell me a car. But if he's offering to invest money for me, that might be something i'd want to know.

And if John Smith asks that Google not return any links for his irrelevant articles, does that mean i can't search ANY "John Smith"? What about John, Smith? And what about Smith?

I'm not sure how this can be implemented in any reasonable way.

It can't be. There is no central library of information on the internet. For every news article published on the internet, there are one or more other sites which either duplicate the article, or just steal it outright and pretend its their original content.

A few years ago, someone called my business and asked for my second wife's third husband. They said he listed me as next of kin on a credit application. This of course was false, but a guy on the phone can say anything. I knew what it meant. Good old 3rdvictim was in trouble and this was either a collection agent of a private investigator. A quick google search of his name revealed that his law licence had just been suspended and there were more than 12 malpractice suits against him. There were about a dozen different links to to the story. Some lawyers even used his in their advertising, as an example of why you need a reputable lawyer. All the links went back to the State Bar hearing or the local newspaper story.

The short story was simple. The man is an alcoholic and took on injury cases, which he neglected. The deadline for filing passed and instead of admitting he screwed up, told the clients there had been a negotiation and a structured settlement. He then embezzled law firm money to send monthly payments to clients. Of course, one can't keep that ball in the air for long.

Every couple weeks I would google him again to find out what happened, but no new stories appeared. I was expecting a trial and prison for him, but nothing. I finally ran across a friend of his who knew the inside story. It's hard to hide a train wreck, and that's what this was. It turned out he had not benefitted from his scam, which was a point in his favor. He admitted to all he had done and cooperated with authorities. A judge examined the suits he failed to file and found most of them to be either very small damages, or without merit. In the end, he signed an agreement to repay all the money to the various people involved. Today, he works days at Home Depot and nights at a gas station.

None of that is on the internet. That's the problem with information. We never know what might be missing, or whether we have the complete story. Any attempt to manipulate information in the pursuit of truth and accuracy will just make all of it more unreliable.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

How would this possibly be implemented? There is another person in the same city as me with the same name who is an architect. When I google myself, most of the results come up as him.

If he wants his name removed, will they only clear out his stuff and somehow leave mine hanging around? If I want my name removed, does that mean that people who want to hire an architect will no longer be able to find this guy or see any of the projects that he's worked on in the past? If we need to specify which links we want removed, how do they verify that I'm not trying to fuck up his business in order to have my cousin the architect get more business due to my deleting information about his competition?

 

[Bronzeage]

How would this possibly be implemented? There is another person in the same city as me with the same name who is an architect. When I google myself, most of the results come up as him.

If he wants his name removed, will they only clear out his stuff and somehow leave mine hanging around? If I want my name removed, does that mean that people who want to hire an architect will no longer be able to find this guy or see any of the projects that he's worked on in the past? If we need to specify which links we want removed, how do they verify that I'm not trying to fuck up his business in order to have my cousin the architect get more business due to my deleting information about his competition?

I googled you. It turns out, you're really old.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then again....

This could be lucrative.

It'll take quite some effort to verify each 'block me' request. To make sure that the person asking is the person being blocked (so it's privacy, not an attack); to make sure that the blocked articles or whatever are no longer relevant (Current business practices are relevant, false accusations are not (once proven false)); and to track down each website that has copies of the relevant information.

Not to remove theinformation, but to provide a filter database for Google.

Someone would have to pay for all this effort. Umbrella governments, or Google, or the privacy demanding public on a case by case.

And the really cool part? No one knows what's on teh internet. I could charge you for the hours i spent blocking four hundred websites that quoted one New York Times article with your name.
Prove that i didn't. What, you wanna google for them? Too late. Or Bing? Covered by the same judgment. Maybe the site i blocked just went off the internet, temporarily or permanently. That happens.

We should start a business. The Eternally Spotless Mind. Privacy filters for the information age. Let us make the world safe from your past.

Then roll the dice to see who's going to show up that day to babysit the college students we hire to work it.