Register Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 15 May 2014, 22:46
Spangle Spangle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Originally Posted by Paul M View Post
Thats just hypothetical nonsense. You may as well worry about him getting hit by lightning.
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 15 May 2014 at 22:50 ---------------

Originally Posted by Zachery View Post
So its okay to have the article printed, and findable, just not via google? What sort of side show is this rulling?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 16 May 2014, 03:49
Barcham Barcham is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Real name: Robert
Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5 View Post
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...
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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 16 May 2014, 11:01
BirdOPrey5's Avatar
BirdOPrey5 BirdOPrey5 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real name: Joe D.
Originally Posted by Spangle View Post
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 15 May 2014 at 16:26 ---------------



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 15 May 2014 at 16:28 ---------------



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.
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.

Originally Posted by Spangle View Post
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 15 May 2014 at 22:50 ---------------

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.
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 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.
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.

The court is saying that the information isn't relevant, and shouldn't be easily found in the public domain.
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.
__________________
-Joe
Former vb.org Moderator. Retired.

@BirdOPrey5 | All Things BOP5 | Joe's Ultimate Off Topic
Note - I no longer making new VB mods, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16 May 2014, 12:10
midnz's Avatar
midnz midnz is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real name: Wayne
Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16 May 2014, 13:16
BirdOPrey5's Avatar
BirdOPrey5 BirdOPrey5 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real name: Joe 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.
__________________
-Joe
Former vb.org Moderator. Retired.

@BirdOPrey5 | All Things BOP5 | Joe's Ultimate Off Topic
Note - I no longer making new VB mods, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 16 May 2014, 16:22
Spangle Spangle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 17 May 2014, 01:33
BirdOPrey5's Avatar
BirdOPrey5 BirdOPrey5 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real name: Joe D.
Originally Posted by Spangle View Post
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.
__________________
-Joe
Former vb.org Moderator. Retired.

@BirdOPrey5 | All Things BOP5 | Joe's Ultimate Off Topic
Note - I no longer making new VB mods, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 17 May 2014, 02:15
BBNZowner's Avatar
BBNZowner BBNZowner is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
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
__________________
"The greatest barrier to success is the fear of failure."

Non-profit organisation owner; designer.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 17 May 2014, 06:22
midnz's Avatar
midnz midnz is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Real name: Wayne
Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 17 May 2014, 12:14
BirdOPrey5's Avatar
BirdOPrey5 BirdOPrey5 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real name: Joe D.
Originally Posted by midnz View Post

... 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.
__________________
-Joe
Former vb.org Moderator. Retired.

@BirdOPrey5 | All Things BOP5 | Joe's Ultimate Off Topic
Note - I no longer making new VB mods, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 17 May 2014, 17:28
Barcham Barcham is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Real name: Robert
Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 17 May 2014, 22:00
setishock setishock is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
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
__________________
Working on new projects and expanding our horizons. Come by and see what we're up to now.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 18 May 2014, 13:19
BirdOPrey5's Avatar
BirdOPrey5 BirdOPrey5 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Real name: Joe D.
Originally Posted by Barcham View Post
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...
__________________
-Joe
Former vb.org Moderator. Retired.

@BirdOPrey5 | All Things BOP5 | Joe's Ultimate Off Topic
Note - I no longer making new VB mods, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 18 May 2014, 13:37
cellarius's Avatar
cellarius cellarius is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Real name: Sven
Originally Posted by BirdOPrey5 View Post
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.
__________________
Please note that there will be no further updates to my addons, especially they will not be upgraded for vB5. I'm leaving vB, since IB choose to go the banana-way yet again.

http://www.roma-antiqua.de
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 18 May 2014, 15:41
Spangle Spangle is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 21:20.

Layout Options | Width: Wide Color: