NorthernLights Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Several Guardian and STV articles relating to the former ref have been removed from Google search results in Europe. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google http://news.stv.tv/west-central/281347-google-removes-stv-article-on-former-scottish-referee-from-search-results/ I really hope the media continue to publicise when these "right to be forgotten" requests happen as it really does defeat the purpose of it as I'd forgotten all about this incident until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarto Mutiny Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 Hmm. The Streisand Effect again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Could the OP perhaps explain this in more detail? I'm confused. Ignore - I'm an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Perhaps Hearts and Hibs fans can apply to Google to have their clubs honking seasons just past wiped clean - as for Sevco I doubt the Google administrators have enough man hours between them !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alert Mongoose Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Does the STV article telling us of this decision not just have exactly the same information that the original (now hidden) document contained?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Several Guardian and STV articles relating to the former ref have been removed from Google search results in Europe. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-guardian-google http://news.stv.tv/west-central/281347-google-removes-stv-article-on-former-scottish-referee-from-search-results/ I really hope the media continue to publicise when these "right to be forgotten" requests happen as it really does defeat the purpose of it as I'd forgotten all about this incident until now. The elite are taking more and more control of our lives every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Does the STV article telling us of this decision not just have exactly the same information that the original (now hidden) document contained?! Thats kinda the point of their article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Good news for Peter Houston, he labeled him a cheat and not for the first time during a post match interview at said game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ya Bezzer! Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Surely 'right to be forgotten' should only apply to private or personal information and not public information or news events. By this precedent anyone can have anything they like removed from google searches, for instance a politician can have 'bad news' wiped clean or a public figure can have information 'hidden'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggr Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Interesting. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten "When Google agreed to implement the ruling, European Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding said, "The Court also made clear that journalistic work must not be touched; it is to be protected." I would have thought the Guardian and STV articles would be classed as journalistic work. So why are Google agreeing to these takedowns? I hope the Guardian and STV challenge this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poet of the Macabre Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Interesting. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten "When Google agreed to implement the ruling, European Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding said, "The Court also made clear that journalistic work must not be touched; it is to be protected." I would have thought the Guardian and STV articles would be classed as journalistic work. So why are Google agreeing to these takedowns? I hope the Guardian and STV challenge this. I think they're getting around that by not actually deleting the articles themselves. They are still on the web and accessed fairly easily but you have to actually make an effort to find them, which, most people won't do. I think it's a difficult situation and one that will clearly be abused in the months and years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam4267 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Interesting. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten "When Google agreed to implement the ruling, European Commission Vice-President Viviane Reding said, "The Court also made clear that journalistic work must not be touched; it is to be protected." I would have thought the Guardian and STV articles would be classed as journalistic work. So why are Google agreeing to these takedowns? I hope the Guardian and STV challenge this. The articles aren't being deleted they're just being removed from search engine results if you type that persons name into google Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS7 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Does http://www.google.com/ncr get round it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.