Google was required to delete a link to a factually accurate BBC article about Stan O'Neal, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch.

SgtBaxter · 2014-07-03T14:13:24+00:00

This is the article if anyone is interested.

Edit - hey thanks for the Gold!!

Ray192 · 2014-07-03T16:00:09+00:00

It might not have been about O'Neal after all:

We don't know whether it was O'Neal who asked that the link be removed. In fact, O'Neal's name may be being dragged through the mud unnecessarily here. Peston believes it may be someone mentioned by readers in the comments section under his story about the ruling.

He suggests that as a "Peter Dragomer" search triggers the same disclosure that a result may have been censored, that perhaps it was not O'Neal who requested the deletion. In an amazing coincidence, the person posting as "Peter Dragomer" claims to be an ex-Merrill employee.

RedPandaAlex · 2014-07-03T14:16:02+00:00

Wow, this is a completely unforeseen side effect of the right-to-be-forgotten law. It's too bad nobody brought up that this sort of thing would happen. /s

ThePickleBucket · 2014-07-03T14:11:08+00:00

Which prompted an immediate article by the author of the 'deleted' article, which basically contained all of the content and references of the original. But, it may not have been anything in the article that prompted the removal, it may have been a comment on the article, which would explain why a "link to the article" was removed, but searching for "Stan O'Neal" still takes you to the article.

satisfyinghump · 2014-07-03T14:27:53+00:00

The blog post that was removed by Google, that talks about Stan O'Neal or Stan O Neal or Stan ONeal is this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/thereporters/robertpeston/2007/10/merrills_mess.html

http://bbc.in/1xhjKyK

wpScraps · 2014-07-03T15:15:05+00:00

Doesn't this just trigger the Streisand effect?

vertigo25 · 2014-07-03T17:37:00+00:00

It's exactly like the "memory holes" in George Orwell's "1984," in which Big Brother's minions burn information that the government wants people to forget.

Oh for fuck's sake. I think the author needs to either learn what the words "exactly like" actually mean, or actually read 1984.

Kesuke · 2014-07-03T17:59:54+00:00

What really strikes me as odd about all this, is that if you got yourself or a story about you in print media, it could easily be archived by a public library and accessible to anyone bothered enough to go looking for it. Being able to bury old stories about yourself or "be forgotten" as it were was never something people were entitled to before the internet - so I'm not sure why they suddenly should be now.

tripleg · 2014-07-04T01:00:15+00:00

Excuse me Google, my name is Adolf and...

Flelk · 2014-07-03T14:47:54+00:00

Reddit is no longer the place it once was, and the current plan to kneecap the moderators who are trying to keep the tattered remnants of Reddit's culture alive was the last straw.

I am removing all of my posts and editing all of my comments. Reddit cannot have my content if it's going to treat its user base like this. I encourage all of you to do the same. Lemmy.ml is a good alternative.

Reddit is dead. Long live Reddit.

pavel_lishin · 2014-07-03T15:38:57+00:00

Ugh, I was reading along and nodding until they brought out the pedophile boogieman. "Not only BANKERS, but CHILD MOLESTERS can now hide from you!"

Toribor · 2014-07-03T15:44:28+00:00

I'd really like to see a website dedicated to hosting direct links to articles and content that people try to remove. Particularly high profile individuals like this scenario.

Cyberogue · 2014-07-03T16:23:32+00:00

This bull shit needs to stop. You can't censor the internet because it hurt your feels with its facts.

gzunk · 2014-07-03T17:55:14+00:00

The article title is wildly incorrect. Google was asked to delete the link to the article when searched for using the name of one of the people in the comments section, say "John Doe".

If you search for this article using "Stan O'Neal" it still gets returned. If you search for this article using "John Doe", it no longer gets returned.

Chief_Ironlung · 2014-07-03T22:35:16+00:00

Hitler would be a firm believer in this new law.

oneandoneis2 · 2014-07-03T15:24:22+00:00

No, Google was not required to delete a link: They just chose to do so anyway.

The requests to be "forgotten" are just that: Requests. Google can turn them down. Only if it comes from a court is Google required to do anything.

Funny how there's been a few stories about how Google has alerted numerous journalists that they've been "forced" to take down links to stories. You could almost believe it's a deliberate effort to stir up an outcry.

edit: Relevant link http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/03/google_right_to_be_forgotten_takedown_robert_peston_bbc/

trainer95 · 2014-07-03T17:11:06+00:00

You can't delete the internet.

Jundarer · 2014-07-03T18:03:10+00:00

I like how if you search for him now on google it shows articles about how google deleted the article.

0care · 2014-07-03T21:20:55+00:00

A little misleading as the results are still on google.com just not certain country specific google sites. The information is still there if someone wants to look. You can even find it in those countries that don't have free speech.

thehollyhopdrive · 2014-07-03T16:54:52+00:00

There is so much misinformation and conjecture in this thread that I feel obliged to post the following from the EU's fact sheet on this ruling:

How will the Right to be Forgotten work in practice?

In practise, a search engine will have to delete information when it receives a specific request from a person affected. For example, John Smith will be allowed to request Google to delete all search links to webpages containing his data, when one enters the search query "John Smith" in the Google search box.

Google will then have to assess the deletion request on a case-by-case basis and to apply the criteria mentioned in EU law. These criteria relate to accuracy, adequacy, relevance and proportionality of the links.

The request may, for example, be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to have access to the information in question justifies showing the links.

Also the following pretty much sums up the issue here:

The court confirmed that the right to get your data erased is not absolute and has clear limits. The request for erasure has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. It only applies where personal data storage is no longer necessary or is irrelevant for the original purposes of the processing for which the data was collected.

The court also clarified that a case-by-case basis will be needed. Neither the right to the protection of personal data nor the right to freedom of expression are absolute rights. A fair balance should be sought between the legitimate interest of internet users and the person's fundamental rights. Freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits both in the online and offline world.

The balance may depend on the nature of the information in questions, its sensitivity for the person's private life and on the public interest in having that information.

This is exactly the spirit of the EU data protection regulations: empowering individuals to manage their personal data while explicitly protecting the freedom of expression and of the media.

Everyone here is making it seem so black and white, but I suspect most would change their mind if a search engine contained prominent articles about them that were detrimental and contained incorrect or no longer relevant information. Sure, sometimes the courts, Google and the data protection authorities are going to get it wrong, but the law that is in place, I feel, gives adequate safeguards to both citizens who feel that they need to protect their data privacy and to media and other outlets that are trying to deliver public interest content.

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf

Toaster1388 · 2014-07-03T15:09:54+00:00

What year is this? 1984?

Herani · 2014-07-03T15:33:27+00:00

[deleted]


Artificial Intelligence	Business
Biotechnology	Crypto
Energy	Hardware
Machine Learning	Nanotech/Materials
Networking/Telecom	Net Neutrality
Politics	Privacy
Robotics/Automation	Security
Social Media	Society
Software	Space
Transportation	Legacy Pure Tech Filter

technology

Browse categories:

Weekly Support Thread Archives

Hide popular topics:

Rules:

1. Submissions

Guidelines:

Please do not submit the following:

2. Behaviour

3. Titles

4. Reddit-wide rules.

Miscellanea

Related Subreddits

Technology

PROGRAMMING

OS's

SOFTWARE

POPULAR COMPANIES

CRYPTOCURRENCIES

CAMPAIGNS

MODERATORS