Google falls foul of European Courts
 

The European court of human rights have declared that Google is not outside the law, at least not in EU, the decision which could end up affecting the whole of Google across the world means that they now have have to remove "non-relevant links" to an individual, they have up until now refused to do it.

A Spanish man who went through financial difficulties in the late 1990's claimed that when his name was Googled, the top ranking article was a small piece about him having property repossessed in 1998, he claimed in the court that the information was no longer relevant, as he was now solvent. The Court agreed and have told Google to break all links it has to the article.

The Court also said that "for too long Google has said that it is not a media company, so does not fall in the category of "right to privacy legislation" in Europe, the Court maintains that Google is a media company, and has responsibility to negate non-relevant information about a private persons past.

That sounds like some bullshit to me. Its a page on the internet. If he wants that page taken down, he should request the article be taken down from that website. Not unlinked from google.

Because tomorrow 30 other search engines will still have that data.

I can assure you the BBC do not broadcast bullshit, and whilst the court could not order the original site to take down the article, they can make Google take down the links, and according to the BBC, the article is already sliding down the page, when it was always No1 in the search terms.

How is a european court going to force Google to do anything ?

The idiot has drawn far more attention to the page he wanted to forget than google could ever have done.

This case was brought against Google UK, which Google said it did not have any control over, what the court ruled was that Google cannot sit in it's ivory tower in California and claim to have no control over what it's UK and other World subsidiaries are doing.

I believe the courts ruling is bullshit :)

By levelling extreme fines if they do not comply with the request. Google is out of control and is the worst thing to ever come out of the Internet. The sooner they are put in their place, the better it will be for everyone. Then the EU can start working on Apple. :cool:

You can send your thoughts to :

The European Court of Human Rights
The Hague
Brussels
Belgium


I am sure they will welcome your input :eek:

30 other search engines that nobody uses.

That doesn't change the fact you'd still be able to find the page, if you wanted to.

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.

I think the whole issue has to be looked at as whole, and reading a more detailed explanation of the case, more information has come to light.

Obviously this person isn't the only person in Spain with that name, and the argument was that a piece in local paper was coming top in Google searches, when more recent items were further down the page and on subsequent pages, one again his argument was that the report about him was less relevant than the newer items that cropped up, that is what the court also decided.

Lets say you own a Flower Shop and you really like Tulips... you like Tulips better than Roses. You want to put the Tulips in the front of the store and keep the Roses in the back. It's your store- you should be able to do that, no?

Now some guy from Spain comes into your store. He said his boss came by yesterday very upset Roses weren't in the front and his Boss got mad at him over it even though it wasn't his choice or his fault. And he demands you move the Roses to the front.

You politely say no thanks, it's your store, you like Tulips.

Now this guy goes to an EU court and gets them to force you to move the Roses upfront and the Tulips to the back, and people agree it is a good decision. Unbelievable.

Yeah, it's not exactly Google's fault or even responsibility really; if the information is irrelevant he should be trying to get it taken down fullstop and not just delisted from Google. Is he going to get another court ruling in the future when the only thing associated with his name is the controversy of this case? xD

Yes. As long as no local laws are contravened.

The Google issue is somewhat different in that they provide a service in a different country where the laws might not be the same as they are in the USA.

Here's a clear example:

In New Zealand, if someone commits a minor crime that falls within particular parameters (I think where the offence carries a maximum jail sentence of 3 months or less) then that crime, or crimes, can not be divulged by the Police or anyone else after a period of 2? years have passed. Even if a potential employer makes inquiries of the Police they can't divulge those crimes. It is illegal to do so.

Enter Google ...

Google or any other search engine would be breaking local law if they made those particular crimes available to the general public. It isn't unlawful but illegal to do so. The law expressly forbids it.

If I had a minor criminal record that met the criteria where those crimes were forbidden by law to be divulged, and I noticed that the service provided to New Zealand by Google identified me as committing those crimes, then I could take measures to force Google, or any other search engine of my choosing, to remove that information being provided by the service that they offer this country. I could do this because Google would be breaking local law. Google, or any other international/multinational company, that provides services to New Zealand do so knowing full well that they must comply with our laws.

Does that mean that Google is the only search engine committing that crime? No, of course not. But New Zealand law only extends to our borders. Our government can't prevent someone, say from America, hosting that information on their website but it can prevent that information being disseminated to the New Zealand public. Google allows that dissemination.

... and New Zealand doesn't do drone strikes. :cool:

If Al Queda flew planes into their biggest buildings and killed thousands of people, maybe they would have a change of heart. :rolleyes:

But- proof this is an anti-American ruling with no basis in good law or reality.

I bet New Zealand would make certain that the country they invaded actually had something to do with the attack first, or that they actually did possess WMDs. But it's always easier just to make things up, I guess. :cool:

The guy in question should check with the bank manager and the banking board to see actually how far back the credit history can go. An arbitrary decision by a loan officer based on something they found on Google should be by law irrelevant and illegal to factor in to a loan decision. On the other hand, a person asking for a loan should look up their own credit history and be prepared to explain any occurrences that may be questioned either verbally or in writing.

But for a loan officer to factor in something found online is ludicrous. We all know everything you find on the internet is truthful or they couldn't publish it, right? LOL

Saddam applauding the destruction and murder on 9/11 was reason enough for me- I only wish we could have done the entire war with drones and not put American and allied lives on the line. Next time...

That's just plain nonsense. There are different opinions of protection of personal data here and there, yes, but if people do see things different from you does not automatically make those people anti-american. And yes, there are different traditins in law, and there's different perspectives on personal data protection. If someone has a different opinion from you or his law is different, that does not mean he's lost his sense of reality. You may think to live in god's own country, but face it: Even Americans are only human and you, just like anyone else, can bungle things up big time. Not everything the US or corporate America come up with is glorious or above other countrie's laws.

I think some people are getting a little paranoid here, it's not about being "anti-American", it's about the day to day life of Joe Public being private, and items of news that are no longer relevant being brought to the for by technology, which a matter of a few years back would be lost in the annals of time.

Personally I think the question this raises more than any other, is not what the court is ruling, but how often does Google update the popularity of a search string.
The case being is that, if his is not the only article cropping up when searching for his name, why are more recent articles lower down the pages, logic would suggest that they are being searched more than something from 1998.

No one will address how it is good to give the rich more power or exactly what defines too easy to find... but still want to argue it is a sound ruling or an equal opinion to have. :rolleyes: