Re: No one needs this
Now be honest with us, did you read the article ?
307 posts • joined 28 Aug 2009
Now be honest with us, did you read the article ?
So Google could/should be able to issue a patch for Hangout to stop pre processing videos for now until manufactures pull their fingers out and issue a over the air update for android, an other messaging apps under it control. An other messaging app providers could provide the same fix fairly quickly as well, especially the big guys like Facebook and WhatsApp.
We will see how seriously the messaging apps themselves take this bug.
Only companies which operates and have a legal presence in the EU.
There are a few Chinese an at least one Russia search engines that index the whole web, they have no operational presence in the EU and no business interests in the EU and thus don't need to comply with EU judges decisions and EU governments have no powers to force them to comply with EU.
Society and people expectations are still adapting to having all of this information available with a few press of a keyboard.
I very much more doubt someone in their twenties really cares about some photos that the person that they are interviewing took in Ibiza or down at the local, I know someone who 29 interview employees for a major bank T department yes he could find out a tonne of details about the people who he interviews by searching the web but he doesn't because he accepts that this information little to no effect on them being able to do the job, whilst he knows some of his older colleagues who are in their 40s do have their puritan views and will refuse to employ someone who has a few dodgy pics on some profile page they probably can't even remember setting up or happen to have been arrested for some crime in their teens.
It often older generations that have these prejudices and well frankly we probably have to wait for the old dogs to retire or die to get rid of them.
One of the problems with that is, it can often be other people coming forward with accusations that allows the police to build up enough evidence to get a conviction in the first place.
But names slip out all the time for one. An it only rape victims that get their name protected.
Here a scenario,
one person get a accused of raping a women, they get found innocent by the courts but another person at the same trial get found guilty, the first person who got accused and found innocent, their name will still be mention in articles about the case and is often brought up in job interviews or down the pub. Now they themselves decides they have had enough and so ask for the articles to be removed from Google.
The person who is found innocent deserves to be able to get along with their lives but the person found guilty deserve have their name in the media, so how is Google meant to react. If I was reviewing the case I would have a lot of sympathy with the bloke that is found innocent and decide to remove the article. Unfortunately the side effect of this decision could easily be the actual rapist name also being removed from the Google index.
Right to be forgotten is a lot more complex to implement than it supporters would like to make out, especially when it comes to criminal cases. Often articles and news sites like to cover the whole history of criminal cases, so police suspects are often mention in article long after they became irrelevant to the cases as well. Again do they deserve to be forever tainted with the case?. These are the questions the supporters of this decision have to answer and justify.
"""If Google wasn't sure, then it could simply refuse a request and thus bounce difficult requests to the relevant national data commissioner, who would decide."""
The problem with that was always going to be about cost and Google sent thousands of cases commissioners all across Europe, costs would quickly mount, google having to send lawyers to these cases costs of assembling their cases, writing up documents, potentially flying out witnesses even having to cover the claimant costs. Plus if discussions came out against Google it could leave google open to be sued for continue reputational damage, most costs.
An that one of the unintended side effects of the law that the stupid judges in Europe didn't think about, criminal cases often involve multiple people thus multiple people will often be mention in the article and would have their privacy violated, thus they have the right to remove the article, not just the criminal in the article. Stupid decision by a bunch of overzealous judges in Europe, it no wonder a large percentage of Brits want to leave Europe.
If people don't like the way Google is dealing with then they should campaign for the government to take on the costs of dealing with all the cases an the people who want that can pay extra taxes to pay for it.
That presume the media will keep us inform about removals and keep fighting mistakes. With many media companies struggling financially their little incentive for them to spend money on fighting Google decisions.
shhhhhhhhhhhh- let at least pretend this is a brand new innovative product and not just radio over the internet.
This one confusing, messy article, I think the editor need to take another look at it, especially the first page.
The fact the lawyer firm is crying foul suggests that there is a fire to be found. Sony docs for me at least point to some sort of conspiracy. That doesn't necessarily give Google the right to demand these own fishing expedition but still I refuse to stick up for the MPAA and Hollywood.
Hood was on his own fishing expedition and rightly withdraw the requests before he got slap down by the courts for it.
I knew this was turn bad once judges with zero programming knowledge and zero interest in programming got involved.
Given that they have a big announcement coming up my guess would be a new product. Also they could have expanded their staff into area like ads sales team and not new developers.
Unless you find a way to stop apple from remotely disabling the app.
Frontier have already confirm power play has nothing to do with with PVP Arena. Which I'm sure are coming in some form or another. I'm pretty sure if it does come it will be done in a similar manner to community goals and war zones, they will pop up anywhere but likely to be confine Anarchy systems and Empire control systems and will be combination of NPCs and real players.
That still results in the same thing happen, android devices without encryption only as an added bonus Android with no encryption and no security updates.
That generally how data protection laws are enforce, it far more cooperative than confrontational than just about any other area of law at the minute, which why the act tough act from EU have been grinded down to what the whole are minor changes and no where near the original EU demand of a complete role back to the previous privacy policies.
I don't. Which is why I expected Google to win the first place. The ICO generally urge on the side of not taking people to court.
or the 200 pages times 70 like the old regime, which the EU 29 article working group wanted Google to return to.
Don't like to boast but I did predict google would pick off the data protection commissioners one by one in the EU and that the UK was likely to be the first to agree a deal. This deal goes nowhere near as far as EU Article 29 working group initial demands, which was to completely reverse the merger of all of Google privacy policies into a single policy. Google has basically gotten what they wanted and all they had to do is add a few words to their policy and make a few promises.
1 commissioner down and 27 more to go, I predict the rest will cave pretty easily they won't want to absorb the cost of fighting Google in the courts.
Actually Google doesn't know which Toothpaste I use or which shampoo I have use be I have never bought neither online or ever search for either online.
An for both I just buy which ever one cheapest. That goes for countless other things. Sainsbury probably know more about my shopping habits than Google does.
Google have already inform Sony and it legal firms to save the documents and be prepare for legal requests to obtain the documents. So whilst the original info may have from purloined documents, Google is looking at seizing those documents legally from Sony, it law firms and possible MPAA.
Nice touch is that Google has already informed Sony and it lawyers to keep copies of call documents, which suggests that Google will go and get original directly from source. An now it already seen everything from Sony has, they know exactly what to ask for.
Four difference, 1: Microsoft had a much high market penetration. 2: There was actually no way to remove IE from Windows. 3: Google has lots of very rich and well resource competitors, Apple, Microsoft, Blackberry and others 4: Mobile phone networks can always use the open source version of android and avoid having to use Google version of Android and do whatever they want and install whatever crapware they want to force onto their customers, like Amazon has done and several Chinese and Russians companies have done.
I seen four year olds install their favourite apps on my mobile, the pleasure of having young cousins and nephews and nieces. Changing the search engine on the phone should be no harder and if a 4 year old can manage to install an app I'm sure the rest of us will be able to figure it out.
The problem with these arguments is that by keeping the bones they do have secret from the community they are denying the ability of others to present their own bones, so why Kaspersky and Symantec and others may not have had all the bones individually they may have had enough of the bones separately to build a model of the Dinosaur much earlier that 2 years after the first bone was found by either company.
And last I check the UK was part of the European commission which has been targeted. It not beyond the possibility that Five eyes or one of the Five eyes countries found Regin but decided to reverse engineer it and use it themselves, which is one of the the big risks of using cyber weapons once they are out there anyone can get hold of them and start using them themselves.
China is also conveniently missing from the list of targets, they aren't slouches in the cyberwarfare industry.
I bet the real purpose of this apps is to allow google to experiment with new or enhance features which will eventually be rolled into Gmail.
The unhappy phone maker was Nokia and Google they been effectively controlled by Microsoft for a few years. The others haven't complained that much. An if and Google is cheaper than developing there own OS or paying Microsoft for there's.
It going to be interesting to watch the number of contactless payments in the 6 to 12 months as buses are no longer accepting cash, which will lead people to realise they can use their bank card rather than having to wait for the next bus and hunt for somewhere to top up your oyster, impossible to do late at night.
The what the British ICO suggests Google did forward all complaints automatically on to the ICO.
May be you should explain it why money that would need to be spent on the ICO to govern this silly EU law couldn't be spent elsewhere within the Government, given that the ICO and NHS come general taxation and not from any special taxes set up to specifically to pay for them.
I like the way you assume people have to be a yank to comment on this stupid ruling.
It not free, it my tax money being spent and the ICO would have to expand to deal with this if Google just sent every request to the ICO.
An I rather the money be spent of the NHS and plug some of that 4 billion pound deficit than the ICO managing a EU judges rulings.
Except no one going to question Google getting it wrong, sure the BBC reporter or the Guardian might question the first one or two times but they will get bored and move on to other things. An as long as the person filing the request get their way they are unlikely to question it either. An Google isn't required by the law to forward the request onto anyone either. They aren't even sure, an it isn't spelled out in the ruling whether Google can share any details of the complaint with the website.
If Google is applying this to comments made on a website, I could see most sites removing their commenting system altogether. Which is a shame because the commenting and debating stories on sites is one of the best parts of the internet, especially when it comes to questioning one sided reporting that happens on some subjects.
It interesting that as Preston bought up the article again, does that count the article has being relevant again and so is now allowed to be in Google search index again?
Another legal point to be argue in court, when does a no longer relevant article become relevant again.
Google is entitle to reject it, it doesn't have to and indeed why should a company spend it own money rejecting bogus requests and having to defend itself in court, when it cheaper, easier to just grant the request and move on to the next request.
Yes their own legal advisors and internal experts, who wrote a legal opinion that the judges should throw out the complaint and refuse to grant the right to be forgotten. They were ignored by the judges.
if I was running google I would be automatically granting each request, not even bothering to notify the BBC or even bothering to read the requests themselves, I'm certain smaller search engine who can't afford to hire an army of paralegals, will do just that.
There no such thing as the spirit of the law, there the letter of the law and only the letter of the law. If the EU judgement was written with loop holes in it then it up for the judges to close them.
That would probably be declared as contempt of court. Adding a direct link to Google.com search.
Should EU law cover what happens in America, then in that case US law should cover the EU and China laws should cover both the EU and US, according to this article whole point of view. Of cause we don't like all of Chinese laws, just like the US don't like all EU laws and the EU don't like all US laws. Of cause some powers would love nothing more than to break up the internet as a single entity.
An Google has to remember your requests to have links remove so that it doesn't simply reindex them using it crawlers.
I'm sure the Spanish FA are already filing the paper work.
I just the got the image of GCHQ hierarchy all laughing their heads off at how NSA is getting all the flak and GCHQ is virtually ignored. They are probably rubbing their hand with gleem at getting even more money from the NSA to run their operations as well.
That presumes they put in the same system they have for their copyright complaints. they probably will but it not guaranteed.
The judges ruling makes no demands for such a system in their ruling and Yahoo doesn't tell the user that links related to their search have been remove, Bing tell you that links been remove but provide no detail information on each like Google does. I doubt small search companies could afford to build such a system that inform the user of each request and detail explanation of why the link have been removed.
Actually he can if Google decides it wants to, there no oversight of this law if Google complies with the request as this new law effectively cobble together from a number of different laws, made by unelected judges, specifically state that it must be referred to Google/search engine first, only if they reject it can the complainer go to the ICO and from then on through the court system.
No complainer is going to take google to the ICO if Google accepts the request, even if that request doesn't comply with the EU court ruling because hey they got what they wanted, their past whitewash and they aren't going to care if their request broke the ruling and Google aren't going to complain about themselves granting such requests and the user won't know such links have been removed because informing us such links been remove breaks the whole point of the right to be forgotten in the first place.
That up to the search engines. There nothing in the judgement which forces search engines to go to the courts but it does say that the person requesting the removal of the link on search engines must make the request to the search engine first and ask for the links to be remove only then can it go to the ICO refer there by either Google or the person making the request.
This leave Google and search engines in complete control of what happens next after a request is made, most complainers aren't going to refer their complaint the ICO if their requests are accepted and if Google automatically accept all requests who is going to complain to the ICO? no one, which effectively means their zero oversight of this law and that means Google alone decide what is and isn't remove from its index, which is effectively removing it from the internet in many countries in Europe.
There only appeals if Google or another online search engine don't agree to your requests and your appeal to the ICO or they choose to pass it only to the information commissioner office, there nothing in the ruling that force them to do that.
An currently there is nothing that says Google or other online search engines have to send these requests off to someone to review or vet that they are being handle probably by the online services.
The scary thing is that Google or any online service could accept all complaints, what is stopping Google, apart from Google from automatically processing all applications for removals with zero human analyst. Nothing and that is precisely the problem with this verdict, zero oversight of online services unless they decide to send it off the ICO.
So there is a no argument right to be forgotten if Google or anyone else decides it not going to argue and it be cheaper for online services to do exactly that.
Now Google will probably go through the expense of doing this right or as right as it reasonable can be done, other smaller less well equip companies probably won't, especially ones that don't have army of legal teams to do it, teams that consist of just a few programmers in a room trying to build their lively hoods, they receive a complaint they are more than likely just delete the links and be done with it and continue with their actual jobs rather making sure it fits within the judgement criteria.
An judges verdict reads like they expect no one to try and abuse this system, when we the public and infinite imaginations can imagine all kind of people wanting to try and abuse this ruling to clean up their past.
An is the ICO even equip to handle the 1200 requests so far Google have receive. An if not how much money will it require if every online service decides to send their requests directly to the ICO, does it even have the facilities and case handling software to handle the same request from a single sent to multiple services.
Hopefully the pharmacies themselves will invest in getting their stock online so that surgeries will be told they haven't got the stock it, when they expect more in. In a ideal world the GP would be able to assign the prescription to one that has got it in stock.
It should be but it isn't. Mine doesn't either.
Laws can be abuse anyone who thinks someone isn't going to try and abuse this law is an idiot. Just like copyright takedown requests are regularly abuse so will these right to be forgotten requests except right to be forgotten is far more powerful. An this is a massively reinterpretation of a law that was never design to be use in this way.
This will also have a chilling effect on anyone who want to get into the search engine game and in fact it probably push the bar to the point where it simply not worth new entrants from entering the market.
An I don't see how google can do anything other than a team of experts running this program and decide what relevant and what irrelevant plus they will also have to decide if some they declare one week irrelevant has suddenly become relevant this week or how the courts systems can possible evaluate this right to be forgotten on a case by case basis, that could easily be 10s of thousands of every year. Which means the only way to enforce this is through automated technology, an again that leave it wide open to being abuse by anyone who got a past they wish to white wash.
An it not just search engines, their nothing to prevent right to be forgotten notices to being issued newspapers websites with their own search engines or even to the register or to people that maintain blogs with search engine functionality or online archives.