Censorship concerns after landmark ECJ ruling against Google

[Hellhammer]

[QUOTE]The European Court of Justice has ruled that individuals have the right to ask US internet giant Google to delete personal data "to be forgotten" online under certain circumstances when the personal data becomes out dated or inaccurate. The landmark case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that a Google search of his name brought up 16-year-old articles about his debts, which he says infringed his privacy.
It was not clear if the ruling will impact the way Google displays its results in Australia, where it is almost impossible to have information removed from Google.
Luke Hopewell, editor of technology website Gizmodo, welcomed the decision but says it has raised concerns over censorship.
"It's definitely a positive ruling to have anywhere in the world," he told SBS. "

"What you need to remember though is this should be available to private citizens and not to companies."
The Australian Law Reform Commission recently recommended that people be given the "right to be deleted". If adopted by the government, anyone could force organisations to remove information held about them.
"A search company's algorithm basically says let's search for X, Y and X. What a court is now telling the search company is to not search for Y, but still keep the other search results. That's really interesting because it’s asking a company to break its own product on behalf of the user," says Hopewell.
"Australia implemented a policy in last night's Budget for an E-safety commissioner."
Hopewell says the Australian government is in its infancy in terms of understanding the internet.
“We definitely need better informed legislators to figure out how we can protect citizen rights online at a government level," he says

[B]Concerns over 'online reputation' management[/B]
Other technology analysts worldwide echoed expressed similar concerns.
"The practical implementation seems to be vague and potentially very messy," said Greg Sterling, analyst at Opus Research.

Sterling said Google should be able to comply and filter the results, but that means internet search results could be different depending on where the user is located, in a manner similar to what takes place in China under government censorship rules.
"This opens the door to people who don't like search results to remove or change their information," Sterling told news agency AFP.
The analyst added that it could be "problematic" trying to determine which results to remove and that "this begs the question about what is in the public interest".
Danny Sullivan of the website Search Engine Land said the impact may be positive if it only applies to protection of privacy.

"However, there's a real concern if this turns out to be abused, if done to prevent easy access to legitimate public records," Sullivan added.
Google said the ruling was a disappointment and would now take time to analyse the implications.
The case highlights growing concerns about so-called online reputation management, which has spawned an industry that helps eliminate or minimise damaging information online.
In the United States, a law passed in California allowing individuals to erase online content from postings as a minor, but only items the users uploaded themselves.[/QUOTE]
The video are in the source as well:
[URL]http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/05/14/censorship-concerns-after-landmark-ecj-ruling-against-google[/URL]

[Sableye]

booo

booo stupid people on the internet, boo

i mean really this is as bad as the new net "neutrality" laws that the FCC is moving on

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=Sableye;44808083]booo

booo stupid people on the internet, boo

i mean really this is as bad as the new net "neutrality" laws that the FCC is moving on[/QUOTE]

Only people get access to this, not companies.
Also, they can only do it if the information is outdated or inaccurate, which shouldn't be the case too often.
(It could be a problem to check every request, but they have to verify someone's identity anyway I think, so it wouldn't be too much of an extra step to see if the request is legitimate or should be disputed.)