Comment Re:Blaming Google (Score 1) 239
Google doesn't publish any of the information it indexes.
Google cache. Google news. Enough said.
Fair enough, I should have been clear that I was only referring to search results, not news aggregation sites which could be held to a different standard just as print news.
Google makes no claim to the veracity of their information, beyond trying to keep obvious attempts to game result sour of searches.
Which causes all sorts of potential slander and defamation headaches. Slander can be as simple as repeating an untruth, thereby sullying someone's reputation. As a private company without any special legal status, I would expect they should embrace the possibility that a simple request for removal from their index might prevent a more protracted legal proceeding. In fact, refusing to remove material when reasonably requested would likely qualify easily as obstruction.
Not really, they are following an accepted practice since the start of the internet [...] If you don't want them to crawl your site, a simple HTML tag will stop them unlike window washers who you may have to pull a weapon on to convince them to leave your property alone.
Except that, because Google is indiscriminate, they will repeat and amplify, for profit, any untruths that they happen to find on obscure websites. Suppose I accuse you by name of being a terrorist. You can attack me legally, but most likely my blog isn't worth the effort. But Google enhances and duplicates my outrageous claims to anyone, especially if I've been clever about it. So now you have a problem. While technically I originated the terrorist claim, Google is slandering you in this case orders of magnitude more than I. And both legally and practically, you really need to tell Google to stop.
Actually, the onus should be on the original publisher to remove the material, not on the indexer. That ensures any link to the original information is now gone, not just the search engine results; which really ensures it is "forgotten." Google et. al. may make it easier to to find the information but since they are not the originator they have no liability for what is said.You do have a good point in that Google i stye easy target to go after rather than actually ensuring information is forgotten. However, the EU could require the hosting site to remove the page or, if they are a non-EU site not to serve it to EU IP addresses.
So while it may be practical to stop Google (and any other research engine that has a physical EU presence) I do not think Google should be legally liable for any material they index simply because they make it easier to find something someone does not like.
I would say that is one POV. Independent of wether or not you consider Google to publish information, the challenge is how to decide what is legitimately able to be removed. When is their a demonstrable public interest in the information that outweighs a right to privacy?
I disagree with this interpretation. Google is an unregulated private company. They have neither an obligation to the public, nor any higher binding standards that are imposed by law on them. They are solely responsible to their shareholders, to maximize returns within the ordinary bounds of the law.
The problem of deciding what is legitimate or not isn't a problem for Google to solve, it is a problem for the courts to decide on a case by case basis. But since that is obviously highly impractical, I feel that gving the subjects of the information the right to censor it from Google searches is the next best solution. The same requirement about data should apply to all ordinary private companies without special status.
I would propose just the opposite - obtain a court order to remove the material from the search and then Google would comply. This would assure that Google doesn't just wind up removing results simply because someone somewhere in the EU requests it; rather it would ensure there really is a valid reason to remove it. If the EU wants to assert a right they should provide the mechanism to ensure it is applied in a reasonable manner.
Alternatively, if Google is to get special privileges to use other people's data in ways that can harm them, then Google should become a public agency, legally regulated, and probably owned and controlled by the state. Think NASA. At least that way there is a real social contract and tradeoff.
Should the press be shutout from Google searches because what they publish could be embarrassing, damaging, and possibly wrong? Get a bad review? Take it down. This path, taken to an extreme, means no negative information would be searchable, no matter if it is true or not.
I would imagine that much of the press would like this, as it means that they regian control over the information they produce. People will have to visit their sites rather than reading the stories for free through Google.
However, consider what your argument really implies. Google would have to merely institute a policy on content to deal with the deep linking problem. You don't get to search web pages deep within a news site, instead you are presented with the front door of the site only. Once you enter, your dealings are directly with the news site. If they slander you, you can complain to the source. If you read their articles, they get feedback and show you ads, etc. It's really much more logical to not have a third party processing the content and offering an alternative presentation of it without assuming the responsibility of the content.
Here is where we fundamentally differ in viewpoint. Google search is really no different than a card catalogue. It points to where information can be found but makes no claim to the value or veracity of the information. To require them to become keepers of the truth is,IMHO, unreasonable and diminishes the value of the search if anyone can decide what needs to be removed and get it removed by a simple request. If Google then must decide what is a valid request they are put into a legal position where a court could hold them responsible for providing a link to information that had been subject to a removal request. If you want Google to be the gatekeeper I think they should also have a safe harbor provision that lets them be the final arbitrator of what to remove and require a person to obtain a court order against the original publisher of the material requiring them to delete it from their site.
Finally, how do you address cases where a company has no presence in the EU, but is reachable from the EU? Should they comply with removal requests? Should EU based companies with no presence in China remove material the Chinese find offensive, threatening or otherwise want removed?
The defacto accepted approach to this problem is censorship, I believe. The underlying question you should be asking is: does it make more sense for Google to comply with data ownership laws while remaining accessible, or is it better to become completely inaccessible? The fact is that Google doesn't have the power in this relationship. Note that they faced exactly this problem in China a few years ago, and lost the market then. If they refuse to comply with EU laws, they could lose the EU market too.
I am not saying their shouldn't be a mechanism to address a right to privacy but in the absence of clear guidance it can have many unforeseen consequences.
Yes, we both agree on that point. Where we disagree is that I feel the right to censor one's information from private third parties where there is no direct business relationship is already a clear and practical way to address the problem.
Note again that if Google was a highly regulated public agency with a clear mandate to balance and advance the public good, as many people seem to think they are, but they are certainly not, in any way, then the problem would be more complex.
I think our main point of disagreement is how to do this. My concern is the EU directive essentially makes anyone a potential censor simply because they don't like something and thus have a way to limit the ability to find the information. If the EU wants Google to be the gatekeeper they should provide some clear guidance eon what should be removed so Google can act in a manner that balances a right to privacy with the public's right to know. For example, Google could say any criminal conviction more than X years old should not be indexed, statements made by political figures are not subject to removal, etc. Of course, that also means the EU politicians would actually have to think about the impact of their laws and regulations rathe than just be able to blame Google when something goes wrong. Unfortunately most politicians, anywhere, are loathe to do anything that may actually require them potentially subject themselves to criticism.