why anyone thought forced delinking will ever work?
it just draws more attention to what you are trying to delink
Only in a handful of cases. I'm sure I said some things on Usenet way back when that would really embarass me if they ever bubbled up to the top of the search results. I'm sure I used some very un-PC terminology about homosexuals in my younger years, and while I am ashamed of my younger intolerance, there really would be nothing to gain from publically shaming me now. I am reformed. I am no longer homophobic. So yeah... If any such comments ever started appearing at the top of the search results, I'd certainly want to get the struck off the index.
There are some very nasty pieces of work on that list, rapists and murderers who presumably managed to get a removal order from within prison, but some are just weird, like "The news that lesbian couples in England and Wales who start a family through fertility treatment can now place both their names on the birth certificate has been welcomed by a gay couple with children. Eve Carlile describes the move as "practically really helpful, and ideologically great". "Why would they want that removed?
Probably something to do with children. Like maybe they gave up on fertility treatment and adopted, and don't want the kid to think he/she was "second choice".
Mind you others are pretty silly, like the hacker who recorded a rude phone message after being left on hold for too long. Not sure why posterity needs that little tidbit.
That's exactly what right-to-be-forgotten should be about -- stopping little embarassing moments defining you in other people's eyes.
Who has the greater right of protection, the criminal (with regard to published unchallenged news stories) or potential victims.
That's a question for the law of the land and is based on the severity of the crime and bakancing the desire for rehabilitation of offenders against fear of recedivism. Every country has its own laws on the disclosure of criminal offences, and these laws are carefully considered to achieve balance.
Now imagine if you googled your name, and you found that 6 years ago, someone from your hometown, who shares your name and approximate age had gone on a spree of sexual violence and murder fueled by illicit drugs. None of the articles had a photo of the offender. Would you want the article delisted, or would you be standing up for people's right to ostracise you in order to protect the safety of "potential victims"? (See also common Arabic names and the US no-fly list.)
I also think it's strange that somehow it's Google's job to remove pages.
Google is not a dumb index -- Google is a collection of cutting edge data-mining and artificial intelligence algorithms designed to provide data that is of direct relevance to the user's query. That is Google's job.
The European ruling was not about the deletion of information, it was a point about the relevance of information. A spent conviction is legally considered irrelevant, except in certain careers (particularly working with children) and therefore shouldn't be something that Google's algorithm returns. The immediate result was a headache for Google as they were flooded with requests, but this no doubt had an effect on their page ranking, increasing the bias towards recent information (fewer old hits should mean fewer right-to-be-forgotten requests in the long term).
As the internet gets older and bigger, Google's approach to search is starting to look too simple anyway. I can remember when I could find anything I wanted with a few clicks, but now the search resilts are full of amateur "Me too" pages, and the pages with the real information are lost in the noise. When I want to find old stuff I'm often crowded out with new stuff, and vice versa.
In future we will need to return tomore structured search, with date filtering etc to get any useful data out of our systems.
I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.
Which is why there are provisions to remove someone's right to practice for crimes affecting their profession. And it's the government's business to ensure that happens. If you think that in your jurisdiction the government isn't doing enough to disqualify fraudulent accountants, campaign for changes in the law.
I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger.
... which is where the government comes in. Acting on an individual level, emotions override logic, and we need someone to take a detached overview to prevent a descent into mob justice.
Public records are useless if you can't find them.
You can find them if you want. The point of "right to be forgotten" is that in the pre-Google days, you had to go to the library and actively hunt down historical information. It is still easier to go to the BBC website and search their news archives from the comfort of your own home than it ever was to check the 1960s archives of The Times --the information is still very easy to find if you're specifically looking for it. It just makes it harder to stumble across by accident.
Maybe you believe that no good person ever has anything to hide... but then why post AC....?
The main difference in my eyes in why Uber is cheaper is because taxis are set up so people have a career as a taxi driver, but uber is set up for temporary work. So with uber people don't worry about job longevity, or living wage, or health insurance.
...which is surely a problem for everyone...?
Labour laws exist to serve the principle of an honesty day's pay for an honest day's work. If we allow certain parties to engage in commercial activity but excuse them from labour laws nased on "it's not their main source of income", then we're back on the race to the bottom, even as we're just finally getting rid of unpaid internships.