I hope Google cuts off the EU from all services until they change the bullshit ruling.

Good Search, Google Mail, YouTube, Apps, Docs, Android Market...

Lets say ten years ago (this is the period we are talking) you were a bit down on your luck, between jobs like we say in the UK, and you had your house re-possessed, and you local newspaper reported it, as a by-line, a one paragraph piece in the depths of the paper.

Now ten years later, when you have paid back all you owe, and your credit rating is clean, you apply for a mortgage, and just out of interest, the loan manager Googles your name, and this piece of information is top of the page, and because of it, he decides not to give you another mortgage, would you consider that fair? the information is no longer relevant, the debt has been paid, and the poor credit rating time has been served.

So why should something that happened ten years ago, affect the decisions of today ?

More and more prospective employers, banks and other financial industries are turning to the net to find out about people.

What the European Courts are saying is that Google has a duty to ensure that the information available is relevant to today.

--------------- Added [DATE]1400167600[/DATE] at [TIME]1400167600[/TIME] ---------------

You probably could, and the courts have said that they cannot force the paper to take the page down, as that would infringe freedom of the press.

--------------- Added [DATE]1400167717[/DATE] at [TIME]1400167717[/TIME] ---------------

Because if Google UK doesn't obey the European Courts ruling, it can be held in contempt of court, which could lead to the directors/owners being arrested and tried for contempt of court.

Thats just hypothetical nonsense. You may as well worry about him getting hit by lightning.

Someone has a chip on his shoulder. Not a nice thing to say

So its okay to have the article printed, and findable, just not via google? What sort of side show is this rulling?

Actually it's not, it's why he brought the case, he needed a business loan, and couldn't get one, and wondered why, when he inquired they told him about the article, and he did the research.

--------------- Added [DATE]1400190639[/DATE] at [TIME]1400190639[/TIME] ---------------

The point is that if Google or other search engines didn't exist, the information would be very difficult to find, and would be a very expensive exercise.

There have been cases in the UK where people have been turned down for jobs, and lost their jobs through things they have done or said on social media in the past, all found by using Google.

The court is saying that the information isn't relevant, and shouldn't be easily found in the public domain.

Google can cut me off from all of those things anytime they want. Oh wait...I've already removed myself from all of their ad driven, marketing, spyware driven pieces of garbage. :cool:

To your first point- yes that would be a sucky situation BUT...

1) First and foremost you should try to get the info removed from the page that has it. Freedom of the Press? Bullshit. They can figure something out.

2) They could require the banker to only look at relevant information- it could be made illegal to consider 10 year old (or however old) financial information when making loan decisions.

3) General education that because someone couldn't pay his bills 10 years ago doesn't mean they are a bad person or that they are a bad risk today.

Basically Google LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD so you don't have to be a super-rich corporation to do the same research they would sitll be able to do if Google didn't exist.

We know information is power and this ruling will take power away from the poor and middle class- how is that a good thing?

There are cases of that here too- Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of your speech. While I personally feel people should be able to say what they want in their home lives without it affecting their business lives, and I would run such a business in that way, I understand other people have other opinions. If people want a job where they may monitor social networking and want to check on what is publicly accessible that is their right.

Again- they are arbitrarily deciding it's too "Easy" to find. How does one define easy? How many mouse clicks and key-presses are needed before it isn't "easy" to find?

I go to Google and type in the name "Joe Smith" and I see Joe Smith defaulted on a loan in 1989... Easy.

But if I have to go to OldDefaults.com, sign up for a free account, and search, is that still considered easy?

What if I have to have a LexusNexus account for thousands of dollars before I can search for the info, is that Easy?

Remember- the info is always available on the newspapaer's website- all I have to do is search for it there.


It is beyond ridiculous to put the blame on Google for this. Even a European court isn't that stupid. What it is is obvious- anti-American discrimination- attack successful American companies to pay your way out of debts. Apple, Google, Microsoft, all American companies, all at the top of the tech industry, and all tempting targets to fine away to balance their budgets.

If the Justice systems in foreign (not American) countries issuing Court Judgments against Google is anti-American then isn't the American Justice system's attempts to extradite Kim Dot Com from New Zealand anti-New Zealand?
And can it be reasonably concluded that America is only targeting Kim Dot Com to balance their budget?

I apologise for any offence taken at my questions. None is intended. My tongue is firmly in my cheek. :D

Even if Kim Dot Com was forced to give up all the money he has that is pennies compared to what Google, Apple, Microsoft can and have paid to European governments.

But I hope Kim is able to avoid extradition.