'I'm Happy,' Says Man Whose Case Changed Europe's Rules For Google

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/05/14/312430713/-i-m-happy-says-man-whose-case-changed-europe-s-rules-for-google

by RougeFemme • 12 years ago

24 117 12 years ago

npr.org

if_by_whisky• 12 years ago

Seems like a dangerous precedent.

e40• 12 years ago

I disagree. I have a friend that had some crazy person badmouthing him on various usenet groups. It really bummed him out because when you googled his name, you'd see all those things first. Replace "usenet" with "blog" and you could have the same problem today.

proexploit• 12 years ago

What if your friend has actually done something wrong though, for example, scammed multiple clients out of money? Giving them the ability to remove that information means future clients can't get a fair warning. I'm not knowledgeable about the concept as a whole to have a strong opinion yet but it seems like there's plenty of times I think something should remain public even if a person doesn't want it. If someone posts something false, we have legal systems to handle that complaint. It's not perfect but this seems more dangerous.

throwaway420• 12 years ago

It almost seems backwards until you stop and think about it, but the existence of these kinds of laws actually makes this problem worse for most people.

There is no way for anybody without significant means to continuously monitor the internet for negative search results and then continuously sick lawyers on publishers, search engines, blogs, websites, and forums to get this stuff removed. And even with unlimited means, there really is no way to put some facts back in the bottle once it's been unveiled.

The existence of this kind of law makes it much more likely that most people will automatically believe anything negative that they read on the internet about you because then otherwise they'd assume that you'd be able to get lawyers to remove it.

Right now, today, there's a hint of doubt about the veracity of anything on the internet, and that's actually a good thing for people who have been unfairly attacked.

But if this law becomes widespread and sets a very strong precedent, then people will automatically tend to believe anything that they read about online.

This is a net loss not only for freedom, but for most people who have negative search results.

spinlock3• 12 years ago

replace 'usenet' with 'search engine' and .... your point makes no sense. Your friend should have the slanderous comments removed from Usenet's servers (and mirrors). Then, when Google Search crawls them again, they won't show up in _search_ results. If, on the other hand, you just stop search engines from showing the results _that are on Usenet_, you haven't fixed anything, you've just buried your head in the sand.

genericuser3• 12 years ago

I agree, as it seems like it allows people to basically curate their google results so that only positive things appear about them.

I agree there should be circumstances where content should be removed from indexes but if the content publisher is not required to remove it, and it is legal content, why should google or other search engine providers have to stop indexing it?

What I believe would be a functional system would be that a court order for the content publisher to take down the content should also require google to quit indexing the content, so cached versions aren't able to be found and in case the publisher doesn't comply. But that having a ruling that google has to act as a gatekeeper to legal and already public content about an individual because they feel it is not relevant any longer does seem like a dangerous precedent.

joshlegs• 12 years ago

Really, this is an age-old problem. Journalists have had to deal with this for years. The general consensus was that if it's true, tough crap. The difference between journalism and google is that anybody can google someone. Journalists generally had to spend a lot of time digging up someone's past. The "problem" is just how efficient Google (and other web crawlers) have been at aggregating data. And I'm kind of on the fence about that

thirdsun• 12 years ago

Exactly, it's actually quite similar to those infamous porn dns filters. If there is a plausible reason why not remove the source? The ruling as I understand it just alters the map while the city is still there.

fleitz3• 12 years ago

First, it's not a precedent, Google filters search results to comply with the law in pretty much every jurisdiction, in Europe they are already filtering Maps to comply with local individual privacy law.

In the US these are frequently DMCA requests, and in Europe frequently anti-hate requests. In Europe they simply have found a more expansive view of privacy than that of the US.

If there's a precedent here it's a pretty minor one.

spinlock3• 12 years ago

The case was about google displaying search results of data that others had posted online. It was not about taking down data that google was hosting (eg DMCA).

This is a case of shooting the messenger and leaving the person sending the messages alone.

genericuser3• 12 years ago

Your argument about this being a precedent goes counter to what the article itself says. I honestly have no idea whether you are correct in your judgement about whether this is a precedent but it seems like this is a complaint about the article more than the post you replied to.

"According to The Guardian, the case will be used as a precedent in more than 200 cases pending in Spain's court system; in many of them, plaintiffs are asking for links to be deleted."

eames4• 12 years ago

This is a dangerous precedent. Google should (and probably will) appeal, and I really hope they win. Who knows, the "right to be forgotten" could turn into a "fight to be remembered" ala Trotsky.

jrockway• 12 years ago

I believe this is the final level of appeals, and the only option for changing the ruling is to make new law.

gress32• 12 years ago

Seems like a great precedent. Google spiders the web and creates profiles about people, and they should be held responsible for the consequences.

EvanKelly5• 12 years ago

Are you opposed to the idea of search engines in general?

gress32• 12 years ago

Why would you ask that?

EvanKelly5• 12 years ago

I can't reply to the other comment, but the court case in general is not about "creating profiles" of people. It only deals with things found and presented from web-spidering. I dare say that duckduckgo would have the same results.

Are you opposed to spidering the web and presenting the data based on keyword search? Why should Google be held responsible for indexing publicly available webpages?

gress32• 12 years ago

I am opposed to the idea that because something is a machine process, the people who operate that machine should not be held responsible for any harm it does.

axanoeychron6• 12 years ago

This is a good thing.

If something terrible is posted online and it is true but it hurts nobody if you take it down, it seems like common courtesy to not repeat it. You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual. It's not clear cut and dry.

There are things you choose not to say in real life, even if the are true. Just because something is on the internet does not preclude you from that courtesy and respect. Technical reasons (such as caches) can be used as an excuse to act respectably. You do not go around telling colleagues at work about what other colleagues have done. What would you have to gain?

Imagine if you had relations with someone and it was recorded online. The allegations might be true but who has more right for that information to be left up there for all to find? Should you be allowed to post all you like about others, disregarding the potential effects on that person? Or should you be thoughtful about what is in the public interest?

Now imagine a site that records who had relations with whom. There is no maliciousness in this one: it's more of a public record or encyclopedia. Do you have the right to opt out of it?

To go further with my example. Imagine having a sexually transmitted infectious disease. Is the answer the same?

fleitz3• 12 years ago

Yes, if you had an STD 16 years ago and have dealt with it, it would seem reasonable to have that taken down, or moved off the front page.

It may even be reasonable to have medical records taken down carte blanche.

EvanKelly5• 12 years ago

I think placing the onus on google for this is the wrong precedent and I think it speaks to the public and the court's misunderstanding of what a search engine does.

If this man had problems with his debts being online, he should have contacted/sued the sites which displayed this data. This is like suing TV Guide because there's a show on tv that is offensive to you.

ronaldx2• 12 years ago

I think placing the onus on google for this is the wrong precedent and I think it speaks to the public and the court's misunderstanding of what a search engine does.

I also think it's wrong that they didn't sanction the original publisher, which makes far more sense as a solution.

However, Google should be subject to the laws of Data Protection - a search engine is, in some sense, a data repository that may handle personal data. It is unlike TV Guide in this respect.

Goronmon7• 12 years ago

This is a good thing.

Censorship is never a good thing. Just because you don't like information being made public, doesn't mean that you should be able to get the government to force other people to hide that information (assuming the information itself isn't illegal).

If I steal money from your house, and I'm arrested and sent to jail, should I be allowed to have Google remove any information related to that from search results?

You have to weigh the public interest versus peace of mind for the individual.

Exactly, and in this case you've put the desire of any given individual over the needs of the public interest.

gress32• 12 years ago

Google is not a public institution.

axanoeychron6• 12 years ago

This really is not the same as censorship, equating it does not make an argument.

Your example uses a robbery - a crime which is very much in everyone's interest to be public. It's useful to know where the crime was committed and what kind of crime it was.

My personal life does not concern you. You gain nothing and lose nothing by losing access to it for you should never have had access to begin with. The negative consequences of it being public fall on me, not on you. You have an asymmetric imbalance of power and social obligation with this information.

If you really do not care about your information being public, post something damaging. Someone would probably publicly mirror it to avoid it being removed. If you don't want to post, why not?

Social conduct is a real thing.

Forcing someone else to hide information is an interesting part of this dilemma. That someone else should have no interest in the data either - it does not cost them to remove it.

If there is a wall owned by a landlord and someone graffitis on that wall with some hurtful truth about someone. The graffiti can be considered unnecessary and should never have occurred to begin with. The landlord would have no qualm with removing it.

VikingCoder24• 12 years ago

common courtesy

Common courtesy should not be encoded into law.

If you type the current year into your calculator, and then hit subtract, and then you type the year I was born in to your calculator, it shows you how old I am.

But that's protected information! You could use that to discriminate against me! Texas Instruments, must modify their SUBTRACTION ALGORITHM to not show how old I am!!!

Google is just a SEARCH ALGORITHM.

gress32• 12 years ago

Google is just a search algorithm in the same way that a gun is just a convenient way to move pieces of lead around.

axanoeychron6• 12 years ago

I am not sure what to make of this argument.

A number on a calculator is data, not information.

Do you want a perfect search algorithm that knows no bounds? Would you be okay with it finding a webcam stream into your home? Or phone or your GPS? Would you be okay with making searching everything you have ever visited online or said to someone? Would you be okay with this search algorithm to allow finding your political allegiances?

No? There has to be some limit then. That comes from people and enshrined by the actions of people, constituting common courtesy.

je_bailey2• 12 years ago

To answer your question, yes I should have the right to post a statement that you don't like. I should be able to express myself, make an observation, re-iterate a fact, without censure.

axanoeychron6• 12 years ago

What if your statement is false?

bryanlarsen• 12 years ago

If something should be taken down, it should be taken down at the source.

In this case, the newspaper was allowed to leave the article online, but Google was forced to stop linking to the article.

newman8r3• 12 years ago

I wonder how this would impact an organization like archive.org

pietro• 12 years ago

There are probably hundreds of reasons why archive.org would be illegal in Europe. It's wonderful that they are based in a country that respects freedom of speech.

fleitz3• 12 years ago

That's funny most of HN seems pretty disappointed that it's AT&T's free speech right to hand over your (technically AT&T's) phone records to the gov't (or anyone else they feel like).

codecondo• 12 years ago

I wonder where you got the inspiration for that concern.

newman8r3• 12 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7745547

rasz_pl• 12 years ago

archive.org is perfectly happy with censorship, and does this retroactively. Its right there in their FAQ:

  Archive, does respect robots.txt instructions, and even does so retroactively

newman8r3• 12 years ago

At the request of the content owner - sure, but what happens when I ask them to take down someone else's content because it mentions my name?

happyscrappy2• 12 years ago

Europeans won't see the real search results and if that is how they want it fine, they have no jurisdiction anywhere else.

regoldste3• 12 years ago

"Gonzalez had his home repossessed 16 years ago. If you Google his name, you can still see newspaper stories about his debts. 'It hurts my reputation,' he says in Spanish. 'My debts are long paid, but those links were the first thing you'd see.'"

Congratulations, Mr. Gonzalez; now when people Google your name, your reputation won't only be defined by your foreclosure and past financial troubles--which is now discussed in 10,000+ articles (good luck with those takedown requests!)--but also for being the jerk who killed the internet for Europe.

You have to appreciate the irony...

jessaustin• 12 years ago

I'm envisioning another lawsuit...

genericuser3• 12 years ago

A precedent for which the case becomes invisible to the public because all articles about it had to be hidden because of the precedent itself....

(I realize the precedent wouldn't allow for that because an important legal case like this would remain relevant, and therefore not fall into the category which it allows for removal of, but its funnier to me to imagine that it could apply to itself.)

cpa2• 12 years ago

Killed the internet in Europe? Come on. Free speech in the US and in Europe are two different things. But neither is better, it's a matter of culture. This decision is not backwards and it's not killing free speech as I know it in France (and most of the EU). Now, on the technicalities of the decision, there's probably to be said.

VikingCoder24• 12 years ago

It is absolutely backwards.

It may be more cost effective for Google to stop serving search results in Spain.

Before you call me ridiculous, how much do you think Google makes off of those 47 million Spaniards each year, and how much do you think it will cost Google if those 47 million Spaniards or a large portion of them start demanding the company remove information about them?

If the cost to comply is greater than the profit, what would you do?

regoldste3• 12 years ago

I intended my comment hyperbolically, consistent with my overall satirical tone.

To be clear, I don't believe this will kill the internet, and I don't think it is necessarily undermining European free speech protections. My concern is not as much with freedom of speech and the speaker's right to disseminate information about others; my concern is with the role of the government in curating the universe of "relevant" knowledge that we consume.

As I mentioned in a lengthier discussion of this issue yesterday (when I assumed a more serious tone), I am concerned that the EU's opinion is effectively denuding the internet of its power for disseminating knowledge quickly and cheaply, and thereby democratizing the processes of determining truth. The court has approved a pernicious form of content restrictions that will be based on the utterly toothless (not to mention absurdly subjective) standard of "relevance," and driven by individuals whose interests are contrary to the public interest in information.

gress32• 12 years ago

Presumably you think he should just suffer so that Google can make more profit without inconvenience.

nileshtrivedi• 12 years ago

No, he should sue the sites which host the original article IF they're causing a harm. Since the articles are factually correct and dated appropriately, I don't think any harm is being done to him merely by the presence of those articles.

txutxu• 12 years ago

Everybody talking here about "recorded sex" etc, should know better about what "marabunta" is and how it's used in certain places and sexual groups.

I'm totally with anybody which wants to remove any (own) sex-related recording. With or without tropical drugs. People is terrible.

nsxwolf• 12 years ago

So - how long does it take to crawl the entire web yourself with a modern PC and broadband connection? Is it feasible to have your own uncensored search engine (even if it isn't frequently updated)?

gress32• 12 years ago

Do you seriously believe that Google is somehow unbiased?

mehta• 12 years ago

but it's not about Google only. It is about bing, yahoo and ddg too!

VikingCoder24• 12 years ago

First step, you'd need a big enough hard drive to store the results. Or Punch Cards.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/63/

spinlock3• 12 years ago

I would say this ruling is Orwellian but even Big Brother had the common sense to actually change the primary sources.

happyscrappy2• 12 years ago

Indeed. And Europe wonders why they have trouble innovating.

sparkzilla• 12 years ago

The Spanish fellow had a problem with a government agency that would not remove his records. So instead of dealing with that government abuse he sues a private company that reports using government data. Then the government says the private company has to stop displaying the information. So the government creates the problem and then hides it. Worse, the main beneficiaries of this law will not be ordinary people, it'll be criminals, politicians and powerful people who now have a way to hide their wrongdoings.

'I'm Happy,' Says Man Whose Case Changed Europe's Rules For Google

Related Stories