Google falls foul of European Courts

[Spangle]

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.

[BirdOPrey5]

Originally Posted by Spangle

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.

[BBNZowner]

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

[midnz]

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

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?

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.

[BirdOPrey5]

Originally Posted by midnz

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

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

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

[Barcham]

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

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

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.

[setishock]

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

[BirdOPrey5]

Originally Posted by Barcham

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.

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...

[cellarius]

Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5

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

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.

[Spangle]

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.