Quite right too.
Google doesn't do journalism. They are a parasite that leeches off of the work of proper journalists.
UK Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham has declared war on Google, urging the High Court to throw out the ad biz's defences in the Right To Be Forgotten trial because they are "impermissibly broad". "If Google were right in its approach to the concept of 'journalism', that would yield a result whereby the commissioner …
On the assumption that this one is not going to go Google's way, I'm looking forward to the Judge's verdict. Will it be as forthright as the one delivered by the Judge in the case concerning Uber and their status as an employer? Will this Judge take their cue from this submission? I do hope so.
In general I think the US tech companies should wise up and realise that things tend not to work in a USA way outside of the USA. The need to wise up is purely economic; there's only 300million USAians, there's 6billion people in the rest of the world with a large amount of money and significantly different views on the limits on "free speech" to that commonly held in the USA. Google, Facebook, etc. are in danger of being legislated out of existence outside of the USA (at least in their present form). It might take a while, but when it does happen we'll be looking back at these few years as being the time they should have changed their business models.
That's why we have a regulator.
Spoken like only someone who has never had to refer a matter to the ICO could. The regulator is asleep, if not dead, at the wheel. I've raised some very serious concerns to them, and while they eventually force the companes concerned to comply with the law, they refuse point blank to bring prosecutions or level fines. The ICO is, frankly, a disgrace that is not fit for purpose.
Chocolate Factory has a major problem claiming journalism - no one is doing basic journalism with the search as it is done algorithmically. The case hinges on whether a random search is basic journalism requiring reasonable judgement about the reliability of the information, relevance, importance, etc to the final result. Also, most searches are not journalists looking for information for a news article but someone just being curious.
"The case hinges on whether a random search is basic journalism requiring reasonable judgement about the reliability of the information, relevance, importance, etc to the final result."
It should do, as this is a sensible description. But the UK Courts have already established that journalism may mean distribution of documents written by others, and this is what Google is arguing it does.
But if they are journalists, won't they have to abide by a whole host of other journalistic rules, such as not publishing anything libellous or defamatory etc. This means that they would no longer claim to simply be a platform. Seems to me they want to have their chocolate bar and eat it.
Excellent point And now that they have publicly stated, on the record, that all content they deliver IS journalism, presumably they ARE now legally responsible for any libellous statements in that content and will have to cover all libel costs resulting from it : their hapiness or otherwise about the situation being completely irrelevant to the courts.
There are no contenders (as far as I am aware) who could push Google out of the top spot.
Increasingly their search results appear to be strongly biased both commercially and politically.
Google would/could have far more impact on an election result than a few Russian or other trolls, simply by massaging search results.
The people who have a justifiable need to be forgotten are ones who were unjustly accused. For example, someone might have been arrested for downloading child porn, but what actually happened was the person's router had no password and allowed his pervert neighbor to steal wireless service and download child porn. The person was stupid and incompetent, but not a pervert. But psychopaths such as Robert Thompson and Jon Venables must not be given the right to be forgotten.
Google is not a journalist. Its infamous episode of interfering with search results for "islam is" proves that it has a political agenda and must be regulated. https://www.wired.com/2010/01/google-islam-censorship/
Erm, Thompson and Venables WERE given the right to be forgotten by the trial judge, when he placed a lifetime injunction on their new identities being revealed.
Umm no - protecting their new identities was not giving them the right to be forgotten. IMHO a precautionary measure by the courts to prevent violence on their person. Remember the 'paediatrician' hounded from her home by retards who could not spell (well in the UK anyway)?
A lot of people appear to be in support of the regulator in this instance, possibly in part due to the fact that Google are bastards, but has no one asked exactly *who* it is who is suing for their right to be forgotten? I do not support Google, but what is so special about this case?
This avenue is not available for common people: the person suing isn't Joe Bloggs on legal aid - the barrister (Hugh Tomlinson, google it) for the person referred to as "NT1" is a private barrister specialising in helping high profile people remain secret, and was recently hired to block publication of papers related to the "paradise papers" leak.
In short, he is a specialist at preventing the spread of information. Obviously this is what you need when facing Google in the high court, but isn't anyone asking why the regulator only steps in when one of the most expensive barristers in their field has a high profile case in the high court?
Who in this country has been fortunate enough to receive such a powerful personalised response like this from the Information Commissioner during the course of their court case? If one wanted to be cynical, one could say that the regulations are not there to protect the plebs, they are there to protect the elites. Almost no one has the ability to take a case like this to the high court, and in the end the precedents that are being set will be made available to the same elite groups who have the most to gain from remaining hidden; powerful people who want to remain hidden will be able to remain hidden.
The "nothing to hide" argument is presented to us as being a fact of life in the most heavily surveilled country on the planet, but again - if one wanted to be cynical, one could say that it seems that this only applies to one portion of the population. Google is an easy target, but remember Google is also one of the only ways that the common man is able to keep tabs on people who watch him who would otherwise be hidden. Massive surveillance networks allow the government and corporations (like Google, and Facebook) to keep tabs on you 24/7 - but don't be fooled into believing that just because one of these elites is battling against another of these elites that it has anything to do with you and your rights.
Moreover, there seems to be a bit of "this guy is obviously rich and did something bad, why should he be able to buy justice". The undertone being that he shouldn't be allowed this right.
So this comes under the "no rights for people we don't think deserve them" banner. But that's the slippery slope to no-one having rights - because once you go down the route of deciding who should and shouldn't have rights, you are well on the way to the sort of thing that happened in Germany in the 1930s and many other things.
THE LAW in this country says that his conviction is spent and he has the right (as does anyone else) to have the conviction disregarded in future (for most purposes) - this case is about whether Google is bypassing that right by prominently putting results pointing to his convictions as the first results in a search on his name.
As others have already said, that right also allows someone who made an indiscretion during their youth to get over it and then continue with a normal life. Should shoplifting as a teenager (or a myriad of other things that young people do in their immaturity) permanently bar you from future employment ? IMO quite reasonably we do not - after some time period, and doing whatever punishment the courts decide is reasonable, the issue can be put away and the person get on with a normal life.
But once you start suggesting that this should selectively apply to "people we approve of", or "people without lots of money", or any other categorisation - then off we go down the route of pastor Martin Niemöller's poem ...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019