Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Following EU Ruling, BBC Article Excluded From Google Searches

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the system-and-method-to-break-the-internet dept.

EU 239

Albanach writes: In 2007, the BBC's economics editor, Robert Peston, penned an article on the massive losses at Merrill Lynch and the resulting resignation of their CEO Stan O'Neal. Today, the BBC has been notified that the 2007 article will no longer appear in some Google searches made within the European Union, apparently as a result of someone exercising their new-found "right to be forgotten." O'Neal was the only individual named in the 2007 article. While O'Neal has left Merrill Lynch, he has not left the world of business, and now holds a directorship at Alcoa, the world's third largest aluminum producer with $23 billion in revenues in 2013.

cancel ×

239 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Blaming Google (5, Funny)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 3 months ago | (#47370945)

I don't know why the journalist is blaming Google for this ("So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?") when it's obvious they're not doing this voluntarily.

Re:Blaming Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371031)

Apparently it was inaccurate, irrelevant or outdated. Too bad. The EU doesn't want any of that stuff around.

Re:Blaming Google (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371263)

Well, although the article is quite opinionated, it seems to reference events of the time, so it shouldn't be considered inaccurate unless the author was lying.

O'Neal (the article spells it with an 'a', despite the summary substituting an 'i') is a director in a new company, so his activities as a CEO of a previous company are still relevant.

And the events of the article are less than a decade old, so the article is definitely not outdated.

So, by all counts Google is dropping the search results voluntarily without even trying to filter for any EU requirements. Thus this is squarely Google's bad.

Re:Blaming Google (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371353)

O'Neal (the article spells it with an 'a', despite the summary substituting an 'i')

It's O'Neill. Two L's.

Re:Blaming Google (2)

Maxwell (13985) | about 3 months ago | (#47371457)

You should let Alcoa know. Pretty embarrassing having the the name of one of their corporate directors wrong.

Re:Blaming Google (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371555)

They already know. There's another Director O'Neil with only one L, and he has no sense of humor at all.

Re:Blaming Google (2)

OakDragon (885217) | about 3 months ago | (#47371655)

You should let Alcoa know. Pretty embarrassing having the the name of one of their corporate directors wrong.

They can always ask for it to be removed.

Re:Blaming Google (4, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | about 3 months ago | (#47371085)

I don't know why the journalist is blaming Google for this ("So why has Google killed this example of my journalism?") when it's obvious they're not doing this voluntarily.

Because the people in charge are terrified of Google, the Internet, and their citizens use of it. So the BBC, kowtowing as usual to power, but still with enough journalistic testicles to make some form of protest, blames Google.. in the hope they can get away with it. Rather than pinning the blame on the corrupt shitpile of lawyers and wonks who forced Google to do this in a desperate attempt to make money the deciding factor in information control and suppression.

Blame Google. (5, Insightful)

Half-pint HAL (718102) | about 3 months ago | (#47371139)

I suspect Google's playing at what is called "malicious compliance". They don't like the law, because they don't like spending money, just making it. So what they really want is to wind up the news outlets to turn them against the law, because only the press has the power to form public opinion. So I'm very glad to see the BBC pushing back rather than swallowing the bait.

Re:Blame Google. (3, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 3 months ago | (#47371227)

They don't like the law, because they don't like spending money, just making it.

As opposed to all of those other companies that love spending money and hate making it?

Re:Blame Google. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371571)

> As opposed to all of those other companies that love spending money and hate making it?

Low UID completely missing the point. You must be in your 40s at least by now. Too bad your mental development is still stuck at the level of a dumbass teenager.

Re:Blame Google. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47371333)

because only the press has the power to form public opinion.

Are you sure about that?

I'm pretty sure we've seen lots of cases where public opinion was formed in spite of "the press".

When you have a "press" that is either owned outright by corporations or heavily subsidized by corporations (like public media in the US), you're only going to see certain types of opinions. However, I know for a fact that there is a growing number of people with opinions that run counter to the corporatist/oligarch agenda. It's not enough to make a change yet, but it's getting more and more like a dense, dry forest in wildfire season. It's not on fire...yet. But it wouldn't take much.

Re:Blame Google. (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 3 months ago | (#47371427)

Yes, it's quite unlikely that this particular example falls within the scope of the EU ruling, which explicitly made exceptions for items of public interest, such as politicians, high-profile actors/businessmen/etc., and similar cases. A CEO of a gigantic company resigning over a public scandal is not the kind of news that is likely to be found outside the public interest, even years later.

Re:Blame Google. (4, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 3 months ago | (#47371463)

So how much money is Google expected to spend reviewing whether seven year old news stories are covered by the ruling? Particularly when they're liable for court costs and damages if the EU court later decides that it is covered by the ruling?

Re:Blame Google. (4, Interesting)

DutchUncle (826473) | about 3 months ago | (#47371727)

"Public Interest" . . . I once sat on a jury on a libel case, in which a financier was suing the Wall Street Journal for having said defamatory things about him. The judge instructed us very clearly that truth is not an absolute defense; that is, even if every single thing in the article was provably true, it would still count as libel if it was (for example) just rehashing old information to defame the financier as he tried to start up a new operation.

If you submit a resume, people check your references, but apparently keeping people from finding out an *executive's* history just requires bigger lawyers.

Re:Blame Google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371451)

I suspect Google's playing at what is called "malicious compliance".

Google doesn't have any choice, and without choice you can't assign motive. QED

Re:Blame Google. (4, Insightful)

duranaki (776224) | about 3 months ago | (#47371561)

I totally agree with the malicious compliance, only I'm glad to see Google doing it. This is a stupid law that seems vaguely like DMCA for removing true information that violates no one's copyright. The EU was nice enough to let Google (pay an army of paralegals to) make a first pass at figuring out which things violated their general terms, so I'm glad Google's using that freedom to point out ludicrous examples before people have forgotten all about this new censorship.

Re:Blame Google. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371691)

Of course they don't like the law, it's a horrible law. And why shouldn't they wind up the news outlets against this, it isn't as if this law doesn't affect the outlets as well. This is merely dragging them into the playing field, where they should have belonged in the first place.

Re:Blaming Google (3, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 months ago | (#47371147)

He doesn't really blame Google. From the article:

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling.

He does question why there's no apparent right to appeal. It would certainly seem reasonable to allow the person responsible for an article to highlight why it is still relevant or not outdated since often they will have better knowledge of the subject area than a paralegal.

Re:Blaming Google (1)

John Allsup (987) | about 3 months ago | (#47371383)

I can imagine Streisand effects coming into play. If google blacklists one article, in compliance, what is to stop other articles containing the information and possibly linking to the original appearing.

Re:Blaming Google (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 3 months ago | (#47371447)

He does question why there's no apparent right to appeal. It would certainly seem reasonable to allow the person responsible for an article to highlight why it is still relevant or not outdated since often they will have better knowledge of the subject area than a paralegal.

This is for the courts to decide. And I suspect Google will take the position that it's suppressed by default, since that's the only safe action for their part (They were ordered by a judge to do so).

Re:Blaming Google (2)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 3 months ago | (#47371507)

He doesn't really blame Google. From the article:

To be fair to Google, it opposed the European court ruling.

He does question why there's no apparent right to appeal. It would certainly seem reasonable to allow the person responsible for an article to highlight why it is still relevant or not outdated since often they will have better knowledge of the subject area than a paralegal.

It appears the "right to be Forgotten" rules apparently have no provision for appeal or to give the supplier of the information the right to decide if it was a valid request. It appears the data holder could decide the request was not a valid one; however given the requester could litigate such a decision it seems many will simply take the expedient route of deleting links.

Quite frankly, an appeals process would be an onerous burden on the data holder since they would then be placed in the position of deciding who is right and possibly face legal challenges. If they want to build in an appeals process then the legal liability and burden out to be on the person making the appeal, not the search engine. After all, Google isn't deleting their content just ignoring it per EU directive; and anyone with a VPN can still go to a non-EU proxy to get access.

Re:Blaming Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371189)

He's not. The "Why has Google killed this example of my journalism?" headline is answered in the article: because the EU Court made them do it. Google is only responsible for the implementation, not the judgement, and the article doesn't imply otherwise. I suppose if people only read the headline that might be a problem.

Re: Not Voluntarily (4, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 3 months ago | (#47371277)

In general I applaud the EU ruling *if* it really gets implemented fairly. But there's all sorts of wiggles to mess around with.

We've been focusing on "that one guy" but look at this note way at the bottom of the article:

"It is only a few days since the ruling has been implemented - and Google tells me that since then it has received a staggering 50,000 requests for articles to be removed from European searches."

And that's 50K requests in a few days.

Google can afford to hire "the army of paralegals", but does the ruling extend to smaller services? You can delist-bomb a small site out of existence when someone manages a "DDOS Distributed De-List of Service" attack on every article in their entire catalog. Then you get games where people try to de-list each other's materials.

Not that I am a fan of Google, but I can bet a senior lawyer at Google is saying "well hell, besides the cost, if we have taken down seventeen million articles on all kinds of topics, there goes our ten year competitive advantage of useful searches."

Re: Not Voluntarily (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371367)

if we have taken down seventeen million articles on all kinds of topics, there goes our ten year competitive advantage of useful searches.

So, have a national/international registry and submit removal/purge request there. All search engine operators are required to comply with the de-indexing registry.

Re: Not Voluntarily (5, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 3 months ago | (#47371479)

We can call it the Ministry of Truth

Re:Blaming Google (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | about 3 months ago | (#47371399)

The legal issues will take a while to iron out. Can one find the article using other search engines? Maybe it's time for a new Google? Maybe call it "Ranger?" Apologies to Tolkien.

Re:Blaming Google (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#47371709)

Wikipedia:List of Persons who have Exercised their Right to be Forgotten

Re:Blaming Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371421)

If google really wanted to give the EU ruling the finger they'd simply do what they do with DMCA requests, mention that results have been removed due to a ruling and link to a list of them on another website not controlled by google and not hosted in the EU.
They've complied with the law whilst simultaneously proving how stupid it is to try to censor the internet.

Re: Blaming Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371779)

Article is still searchable on BBC.

Oops. (3)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47370947)

No public figure exception? Our bad.

Re:Oops. (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 months ago | (#47371249)

No public figure exception? Our bad.

WONTFIX/WORKSFORME

Re:Oops. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371465)

No public figure exception? Our bad.

Except the ruling made it clear that the public interest did have to be considered. In the test case, they decided that an obscure Spanish guy's financial problems over a decade ago were not a matter of public interest any more. In this case the public interest is clearly very important.

I suspect this 'right to be forgotten' issue is going to be like the "McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit", or "the Twinkie defense" - always referred to massively out of context and with the facts twisted to make them seem ridiculous.

Streisand effect (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 3 months ago | (#47370955)

"Right to be forgotten" works great for some already-anonymous person... not so much for CEOs or other 1%ers.

Re:Streisand effect (2)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 3 months ago | (#47371271)

It does now. Because it's rare and uncommon. And if it goes well for him and people like him, then you're going to see more and more people performing PR campaigns on their own histories, re-writing the past, and burying their past sins.

The streisand effect only happens when someone steps out of line and deviates from the norm. It was an oddity that Streisand sued Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for some aerial photography. Because it made waves, it attracted eyeballs.

Stan O'Neal using this law is a oddity right now. Let's see how commonplace it is in 5 years.

Re:Streisand effect (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#47371501)

They already do this, but before they couldn't request that Google remove the results directly. Instead they'd hire firms to make a bunch of empty-shell blogs with useless puff pieces related to the person in question as SEO spam to bury the undesirable link.

Re:Streisand effect (2)

I_Wrote_This (858682) | about 3 months ago | (#47371827)

The "right to be forgotten" applies to an individual? What about the "right to be able to remember (or find out)", which applies to everyone else?

Before you laugh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47370965)

Before you laugh about these high profile cases of people trying to be "forgotten," remember that after a while, these removals will become so commonplace that people will stop paying attention, and the system will work as intended.

Re:Before you laugh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371089)

Let's just get this out of the way now: If Hitler were alive today he'd be able to have Google remove all links to anything relating to himself as the Nazi leader.

Another question to be asked: If a journalistic article can be taken down, could a page with commenters referencing Hitler (as in this /. article due to this very post) be removed from Google's search?

Re:Before you laugh (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371511)

Everybody removes Hitler from Google searches on their first try at censorship. http://www.abyssapexzine.com/wikihistory/ [abyssapexzine.com] http://xkcd.com/1063/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Before you laugh (1)

Poeli (573204) | about 3 months ago | (#47371517)

Let's just get this out of the way now: If Hitler were alive today he'd be able to have Google remove all links to anything relating to himself as the Nazi leader.

Hypothetically:
He could ask that if you search for his name, you won't find any links about him being the Nazi leader. However, if you search for Nazi leader, all these links would show up again. Same for 'genocide jews', ... Google only has to remove the link between a search term and a search result. It doesn't delete the actual search result from it's index.

Re:Before you laugh (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371605)

> Let's just get this out of the way now: If Hitler were alive today he'd be able to have Google remove all links to anything relating to himself as the Nazi leader.

No he would not. There is a public interest exception to the law. Information about being the head of a major political movement is unequivocally within the scope of the public interest exception.

If you can't even get the Godwin right, its time to re-examine your position on an issue.

Streisand effect? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47370975)

What about this slashdot entry? Will it also not appear in google search results?

Re:Streisand effect? (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | about 3 months ago | (#47371237)

What about this slashdot entry? Will it also not appear in google search results?

Until they change the law to force Google to remove ALL Slashdot results to "ensure complete compliance with the citizen's rights."

Heck, I'm waiting for a US version of this law to allow companies to issue Google Gag orders against bad things they've done. Want to learn about how Exxon Mobil spilled oil? Not on the Corporate Internet, you don't!

Who controls the past... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47370981)

...controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

tired of being pissed on yet?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371101)

Is it machete time yet?

Re:Who controls the past... (5, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | about 3 months ago | (#47371115)

1984; the instruction manual for our lords and masters.

Google should create a special app/site for takedown requests, and call it 'Winston'.

And Teh Google say, Take that! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47370989)

Touche'/

Whoops (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47370999)

Didn't take long to find the giant flaw in with the "right to be forgotten," did it? One percenters will now use it to selectively edit their Internet profile.

Re: Whoops (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371127)

Well, sort of. Google's search is for the masses. Financial sector companies subscribe to other, paywalled sources of information, like Lexis and Bloomberg. They'll still carry the uncensored truth, which is a great selling point.

Streisand Effect? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371015)

But I assume they aren't going to block the glut of articles about this landmark event? So his name will be far more well-known than if it was only mentioned in a 2007 article. Brilliant.

Massive loses? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47371035)

Christ guys, do the editors actually get paid? And if so, what, exactly, is the job description?

Because it clearly doesn't involve, you know, editing.

Re:Massive loses? (1)

markhb (11721) | about 3 months ago | (#47371177)

I think if they attach your name to a blockquote in a story, they apply the "you own your own words" policy and leave it as-is without so much as a smug (sic). For those portions of the story they actually write themselves, it is not required that they spell or use grammar more correctly than CmdrTaco did.

Re:Massive loses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371775)

Figured that out all by yourself, did you?

Wealthy People Have the Same Rights as You (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371043)

Film at 11.

Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371045)

On one hand you have a guy who got in a bar fight when he was in college. Some drunk idiot spills beer on his girlfriend, so he confronts drunk idiot and beats him down, then gets charged with assault. On the other hand, you have this piece of shit (Stan O'Neil).

Which is worse? The college kid having an assault charge hanging over his head the rest of his life, or guys like Stan O'Neil being given a free-pass when they rape millions of people for billions of their hard-earned dollars.

Perhaps the answer is to have a 15-year (or 20-year) waiting period before you can exercise your right to be forgotten? Maybe the answer is just not to commit a crime in the first place.

The right to be forgotten is stupid. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371225)

This law is just a workaround for the fact that humans don't think critically about the possible inaccuracy of information found on the Internet. Censorship (which is exactly what this is) is a greater crime against society, and should not be used here.

Instead, we should require that employers, load evaluators, etc., be limited to what sources of information they can use when making a life-impacting decision. Such a law is hard to enforce, of course, but is better than this misguided censorship.

Re:The right to be forgotten is stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371409)

How about some lessons for critical evaluation of information sources?

Re:The right to be forgotten is stupid. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371523)

"The problem with quotations on the Internet is that it is difficult to verify the authenticity of the source."
--Abraham Lincoln.

Re:Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... (2)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 3 months ago | (#47371449)

Would a 20-year old news article about getting into a bar fight really need removal? That isn't going to keep the person from getting a job or something. Someone who judges people from 20-year old charges isn't worth working for.

The power to arbitrarily remove someone else's published works is horrible - it's like the 1st amendment in reverse. There's no legitimate reason for that, and this example of a wealthy person trying to hide their laundry is proof.

Re:Pivotal Decision That Went The Wrong Way... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371537)

How about changing our culture so that public crucifixion based on someone's past mistakes is not acceptable?

who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371047)

Stan O'Neil?? He's a nobody. Forget him!

As well as this SlashDot article (3, Interesting)

sremick (91371) | about 3 months ago | (#47371049)

Soon you won't be finding this Slashdot article in EU Google searches either.

Re:As well as this SlashDot article (1)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 months ago | (#47371109)

Unless O'Neal becomes famous and therefore relevant for exercising his right to be forgotten?

Wrong Name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371067)

Stan O’Neal, not O'Neil.

Screw you Peston (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371069)

So what about Robert Peston's right to write an article and have it survive Stan O'Neil's being all butthurt?

Stan O'Neil - Never heard of him, before. (4, Funny)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 months ago | (#47371087)

Crimmany. Before this demand to be forgotten I had never heard of Stan O'Neil. Now, knowing this I'll be sure not to hire him, etc, etc.

This is hilarious! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371091)

News outlet reports on business world goings on, a CEO leaving a company that is having financial woes.
Google indexes article.
Years later, person mentioned in article files request to delist new article.
Google delists, advises news outlet of article delisting.
News outlet writes new article about delisting of old article, links to old article.
Google indexes new article.

In the words of Robin Williams: "Mr. President. In the dictionary under Redundant, it says 'see: Redundant'."

"Forgotten" doesn't mean much, does it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371105)

Wait... so the right to be forgotten is to simply be delisted in one region? You'd think "forgotten" would mean "all regions" and that the article would be entirely removed from Google's servers. Otherwise why not just call it "delisted" and be more accurate?

Indirect References (4, Interesting)

ZipK (1051658) | about 3 months ago | (#47371107)

Is Google responsible for "forgetting" all possible path to this BBC article? E.g., will this Slashdot article turn up in a Google search in the EU? How about this comment, if I include a link to the original BBC article? [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Indirect References (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371453)

A convenient way to blackhole anything whether it is yours or not.

DUDE actually has a point (2)

cloud.pt (3412475) | about 3 months ago | (#47371111)

So dude doesn't want his name's first search result to be an over-hyped headline. Despite being a very decent publication, BBC is mass media, and as such it has to make news outrageously. Dude just made a pondered decision to save some company's face, or was forced to without having a second chance to fix it, and maybe I'm assuming here) is not even directly at fault for the company's losses. Maybe yes maybe not.

I don't think he has to professionally and personally live under that shadow for the rest of his life, just because an indexing algorithm is inclined to shove it up his popper every single time someone wants to know who he is.

I'm guessing someone who really needs to know that info will know it eventually, not through google. His decision to be forgotten will most likely only seclude the info from wannabe conspiracy theorists and amateur employers, which pretty much deserve to NOT know it :)

Ok, human beings next? (3, Funny)

mi (197448) | about 3 months ago | (#47371137)

Supposedly, a way is discovered to make people forget certain things. Not far-fetched — we can already plant false memories [mit.edu] ...

I am asking the proponents of this wonderful "right to be forgotten" legislation, whether they would approve of a law, that would allow people to demand, their ex-partners be forced to undergo a procedure to make them forget of the good time the have once shared, for example.

Don't give feminists any more ideas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371371)

They're already trying hard enough to eliminate free speech via "hate crime" and "rape culture" legislation...

Law of Unintended Consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371141)

strikes again

Article is wrong (2)

Halo1 (136547) | about 3 months ago | (#47371143)

What it means is that a blog I wrote in 2007 will no longer be findable when searching on Google in Europe.

That is plain wrong. The judgement only requires that people can ask that searches for their name (and /only/ their name) no longer turn up results that are "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".

Searching for Merrill's mess, Merill Lynch subprime etc will all still include his article in the results and no one has any right under the ruling to object to that, even if it mentions Stan Oâ(TM)Neal's name in connection with shady business deals a thousand times (just like no one can object against this post turning up in response to such queries).

Keeping that in mind, I do agree with the author that the article should not be excluded even when searching for Stan Oâ(TM)Neal's name, as the inadequacy/irrelevancy test does not fly here in my opinion either. He did say Google will get back to him on that point.

Chilling Effects clone for search removals? (3, Interesting)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 3 months ago | (#47371149)

How long until a clone of Chilling Effects comes around and indexes all of the removals under the "right to be forgotten" law? Google could even link to them the same way they do Chilling Effects for sites that have been de-listed due to DMCA notices.

Re:Chilling Effects clone for search removals? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 months ago | (#47371563)

They already do this in fact, using the very same Chilling Effects links.

Has Mr O'Neal never heard of... (1)

Flavianoep (1404029) | about 3 months ago | (#47371157)

Streisand effect [wikipedia.org] ?

Stan O'Neal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371163)

Not "O'Neil". For future reference, here's ample detail about Mr. O'Neal's activities at Merrill Lynch on the Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] , and of course the article cited in the original submission has the link to the article that has been "removed" from google. I'm pretty sure that in addition to his past transgressions, Mr. O'Neal is more likely to be remembered for his censorship efforts too thanks to the Streisand Effect.

Thanks for the Reminder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371169)

Short sell Alcoa...

wait (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47371201)

Wait a second. We have to think on this critically.
It was my understanding that the ruling meant that if someone searched for YOU they wouldn't find things about you anymore.
If the BBC had an article about raising Goats, and that article mentioned John Sheldon the internets foremost Goat expert...
If you searched for John Sheldon, you'd not find anything. But if you searched for "raising goats" you would.

Is Google playing games here? Or is this really what is legally required? It seems rather strange that they'd remove an entire BBC article from ALL search results just because 1 guy was mentioned. What if they had a forum section like most news sites do and this guy was an avid poster. Could he then get the entire BBC removed from google? I pretty much comment on every Slashdot story (or damned near it) If I used my real name could I get Slashdot de-listed? If so, this is going to be hilarious.

EU has gone too far for my tastes (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 3 months ago | (#47371203)

"right to be forgotten"
Sounds like a con-artists wet-dream.

I understand the whole forgiveness thing. Some people deserve a second chance. Some people can change.
But what about my right to tell my friends that that asshole just screwed me out of a ton of money and that he can't be trusted?

Re:EU has gone too far for my tastes (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47371265)

Well, the EU has gone to far in the direction of personal rights, and the obligations that imposes on companies.

While the US has gone too far in the direction of corporate rights, and how they can screw us over at will. Because, you know, corporations now have religious freedom to be assholes.

But what about my right to tell my friends that that asshole just screwed me out of a ton of money and that he can't be trusted?

Oddly enough, as long as you can do it without actually committing libel or slander, you still have this right. You just have to phrase it correctly.

The EU 'right to be forgotten' only applies to search engines. It does not (AFAIK) restrict private individuals from actually remembering this stuff, telling others about, and providing links to it.

You just won't be able to find the links using a search engine.

In other news.... (1)

markhb (11721) | about 3 months ago | (#47371205)

A family is reporting that a stranger named "Stan O'Neil" has invaded their home, apparently using a key to the premises, and is claiming to be their husband and father. The woman who heads the family says she does not remember ever seeing the man before, but could not name the father of her children or the person who gave her what appeared to be wedding and engagement rings.

Dictatorship (2)

guises (2423402) | about 3 months ago | (#47371207)

Had to read that three times before it stopped saying dictatorship and started saying directorship.

Pathetic orwellian union (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371255)

Pathetic orwellian union of communist idiots.
I hope my country leaves this shit asap.

Funny he is in the aluminum business now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371257)

Wait weren't Goldman Sachs and a few other investment companies involved in a scheme where they shipped aluminum ingots back and forth between warehouses in order to drive it's price up on the commodities market. Nice to see this guy is just as much of a Shyster as he always was.

Re:Funny he is in the aluminum business now. (1)

blackiner (2787381) | about 3 months ago | (#47371663)

Exactly what I thought when I read this. Basically they are only allowed to hold onto aluminum supplies for a limited amount of time (I guess to encourage them to sell instead of hoard it?). To get around this they would load it all up onto trucks and drive around for a bit, then take it back to the warehouse. This let them artificially control the aluminum supplies and make massive profits. http://www.forexlive.com/blog/... [forexlive.com]

Forget him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371281)

All references to this Stan O'Neil should be filtered and removed. No results on any search, anywhere. Remove him from the web. Remove any pages (including financial statements from his companies) that mention his name.

Personally, I think Google is only the messenger and anyone who wants to be forgotten should contact the host of the web reference, but if the laws say that someone should be removed from Google searches, then Google should do a thorough job of it. Google only reports what's there, doesn't create it...

Congrats EU (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 3 months ago | (#47371305)

Well, you got what you wanted - a right to be forgotten.

So while John the unfairly-maligned ex-husband can have all the nasty stuff his ex-wife said about him deleted from searches, so can Jim the pedophile, Jeff the corrupt politicians, and Jerry the worthless CEO.

In fact, this ruling has in a sense undermined the entire value of the internet where it comes to the power of journalism and public voice.

I guess it's worth it?

AWESOME!!!!! (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 3 months ago | (#47371327)

EUocrats will get their own fascist censorship shoved down their throats.

I have to wonder (4, Informative)

aitikin (909209) | about 3 months ago | (#47371341)

If Google is really just trying to show how flawed this is. After all, if you search him (I popped over to google.co.uk as I'm in the US) that blog certainly does not come up, but about the entire first page of hits (especially if you throw bbc in as well) is about how that page will not come up because of this ruling...

Same old game (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371357)

The rich and powerful have always reserved the right to rewrite history to their benefit. Turn the page...

That was fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371603)

I expected European companies to at least give it a few months before scrubbing the Internet of any of their wrongdoings.

I guess I was a bit slow on my assumption.

article is still in google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371641)

Searching for a phrase from the article ("Merill announced those colossal losses") or other combinations of keywords finds the article just fine:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Merrill+announced+those+colossal+losses

The article has not been removed from google. It only doesn't show if the specific search terms are the guy's name.

Yuo fai7 it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371685)

is 8ot p0rone to [goat.cx]

Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten (3, Informative)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 3 months ago | (#47371863)

Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
Stan O'Neal, you will not be forgotten.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/leg... [bbc.co.uk]
etc.

Pass the word.

Right to be forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47371865)

Wonder how this will work for Experian, TransUnion, Equifax and other credit reporting services? I demand they forget anything bad about me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>