European Union Censorship Brainwashing - AKA the right to be forgotton

Here something i pulled off googles data protection page. This is a clear reason maidsafe is needed more than ever.

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision on the right to be forgotten?

The recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union has profound consequences for search engines in Europe. The court found that certain users have the right to ask search engines like Google to remove results for queries that include the person’s name. To qualify, the results shown would need to be inadequate, irrelevant, no longer relevant, or excessive.

Since this ruling was published on 13 May 2014, we’ve been working around the clock to comply. This is a complicated process because we need to assess each individual request and balance the rights of the individual to control his or her personal data with the public’s right to know and distribute information.

If you have a removal request, please fill out this web form. You’ll receive an automatic reply confirming that we have received your request. We will then assess your case – please note that this may take some time because we have already received many such requests. In evaluating your request, we will look at whether the results include outdated information about your private life. We’ll also look at whether there’s a public interest in the information remaining in our search results – for example, if it relates to financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions or your public conduct as a government official (elected or unelected). These are difficult judgements and as a private organisation, we may not be in a good position to decide on your case. If you disagree with our decision you can contact your local DPA.

We look forward to working closely with data protection authorities and others over the coming months as we refine our approach. The CJEU’s ruling constitutes a significant change for search engines. While we are concerned about its impact, we also believe that it’s important to respect the Court’s judgement and we are working hard to devise a process that complies with the law.

When you search for a name, you may see a notice that says that results may have been modified in accordance with data protection law in Europe. We’re showing this notice in Europe when a user searches for most names, not just pages that have been affected by a removal.

There should be no qualification, if its private data about a private person it should be removable by that person without request. SAFE is in part meant to give us control over our data and stop the mining of it for profit.

1 Like

What happened to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The EU wants to control the information access. This is censorship of its worst kind. Its not only google, sites like wikipedia are experiencing the same pressures from the EU. Unfortunately due to the corrupt centralized nature of the EU legal system theres not alot google can do but comply.

Yeah, so an unscrupulous person who does medical experimentation on the public can just go ahead and request his failures be expunged from the public internet and the sites singing his praises be left alone. No. I don’t believe people should have the right to remove publicly available data about themselves. Of course if you uploaded it yourself, you can remove it and nobody is questioning that. But if I write a scathing article about how I was scammed by someone, that scammer should most definitely not have the right to remove my page from any indexes.

2 Likes

But in almost all cases it’s not.
All search engine info is from publicly available sites.
In most of those cases (where Google was forced to delete people from the search engine index) the original information remained online in the same place where Google scanned it.
It’s essentially a Google shakedown.

SAFE doesn’t know the data it holds. It doesn’t even delete data, if I understand correctly.

SAFE doesn’t know how to forget…

Anyway, Once SAFE comes along – Too bad So sad, unenforcable…

@jreighley but people will still be able to delete their own data they uploaded. People do have a problem with Google over that. It thinks it has a right to spy and snoop or strategically change its privacy policies in away that are defacto retro active and then hold onto that info for any future bidders.

@janitor This will affect Face Book too. The EU is objecting to and made illegal models that by hook or by crook profit from people’s personal data, Should have always been illegal because private persons under a right to privacy have a right to have their lives and reputations not be taken out of context and spun for profit. Face Book in going through people’s address books would send fake product testimonials to their contacts saying hey its so ans so have you tried **** book? This practice still continues- saw one the other day. Why are the face book execs still free?

@Onaka I completely agree. But what goes on here is trying to preserve unnecessary and damaging destabilizing power for people with inordinate amounts of money. They constantly try to conflate privacy with organizational secrecy (What strips us of our privacy- where exercise of rights is based on privacy) and money/censorship with speech.

In the US we’ve long had the private/public persons doctrine. When one defames or slanders or commites libel it generally going to be against someone that held themself out to be a private person. If one comes into the public eye and invites this seeking fame or holds oneself out to be a publuc person most bets are off especially if the allegations are true or reasonable people could in good faith come to see them as true- court essentially publishes convictions.

Now this is where I think FaceBook may well be at some point be exposed to have been a state sponsored public/private scam to begin with in the vein of stuff like MK Ultra. It was really just cover and practical legal cover for stuff more aggressive
than PRISM. Its purpose was to move the private mass of citizens into the public sphere not simply for the excuse of profit but to create mass surveilance and controll and to get it in to non monied peoples minds that they better not defy big money and its plantation because big money know everything about the and will smear them the way it does its puppet govenment representatives.

How? The network doesn’t allow deletion. You can change permissions on your public shares… But you can’t retroactively make things unpublic – Archive.org or something like it can still run over the public SAFE network.

/All in all making people forget isn’t possible anywhere anyway. Banning knowledge is a silly pointless proposition that governments attempt all of the time to no avail.

1 Like

@jreighley No people will still be able to delete the data in their vaults. By the way I like making my transparency arguments for me.

Not quite correct.

They can forget the data is out there – But the data will remain, as the network doesn’t know if it is storing the data for you or if it is storing it for you and a hundred other people. The network doesn’t know what it holds…

Compared to an ISP – Where the government can force them to remove what the government says needs removed – With MaidSAFE, there will be nobody to serve the papers to…

Governments will be powerless. Information that is free will be forever free.

1 Like

And that is not a point of disagreement. As above people will be able to delete private data that they remain aware of and no longer want recorded, that has been kept in their private stores and not diseminated. And yes transparency will matter.

That’s if it’s private data. If it’s someone elses private data about someone however then it wouldn’t be under their control and therefore removing it would be censorship.

1 Like

That’s right, and much better than today.

The EU should not beable to remove links that lead to negetive information. Weather someone is right or wrong, freedom of speech is a fundermental right, everyone has the right to critise the EU. Google knows this and challanged the action but lost in court. It shows all our rights and opinions are going out the window. It will force the many to just like what they see and do what thier told rather than forming open minded evidence based opinions.

You’re mixing things up.
The EU dictators simply want to channel some additional monies to their local sponsors, hence the shakedown of US companies.

It’s funny how on the one hand there’s that slogan “info wants to be free” and on the other “people’s data are their property”… Which is it?

Back to the actual topic: please try to understand that this is NOT about some innocent people removing libelous online creations by Google. The shakedown (aka “law”, lol) is about Google removing shit they indexed from public web sites and that shit REMAINS online even after it’s been removed from Google’s index. And it works so because the info that’s being removed is factual and correct and public domain info, so sites that publish cannot be forced to delete it.

The same people who now can ask Google to delete info on them cannot, even after this completely idiotic “law”, do anything to remove the original (wherever it was published).

It’s funny how SAFE should make it completely impossible to delete any leaked data, or even made up info, so if you think Google is bad, what are you going to think about users who do the same on SAFE?

@janitor, I don’t think there is a confusion at all. I am glad the EU us able to hit Google for what amounts to retroactive action for sponsor profit on info that was not given freely. Google filtered license plates and car interiors from street view but then unacceptably roof tops from busineses to hide them from the EPA.

This is not about secrecy and hiding crimes, its about profiting through sponsorship(censorship) from mining privacy which aids surveilace giving it cover and helping organizational secrecy. Google is now fully sponsored search. Its also pulling a quarter billion links a year over DRM.

Google’s basic business model has become bullsit, sponsored search is idiocy- its skewed search and pervasive censorship, you’re just not supposed to see it. Sergei and Larry were asked multiple times early on to get into search but they refused. Their early stuff actually undermined sponsorship, but now they have fully highest sponsor bidder optimized search. Luckily as we have seen young people don’t click on ads but sponsors are still able to pay to hide and spin their dirt in rankings which is wrong.

What’s bothering people with conditioned shil mentality about the EU move is the EU is actually smacking around a piece of shit transnational on the basis of a fundamental human right, in both apprearance and substance it is putting its people and soveriegnty above the useless Washington concensus which expects the EU to help not hinder in the raping of its people by transnationals. Shil types also dont like that Google is complying clearly on point of conjunction and there is obviously nothing the useless trade courts can do about it. This alone shows the EU was a success and speaks to the higher awareness and education levels in the US.

In fact in most cases it is public info, eg court records of fraudsters and such.

Don’t forget that Web sites can prevent Google from accessing them in the first place, by disallowing Google bots to index their site.

And of course Maidsafe will allow us to profit from such info just like Google does (or did, in cases where they were asked to remove that info), so it’s unclear how anything would change. In this particular case I think what Google does is fine and what Maidsafe users could do would be okay as well.

1 Like

I don’t think that’s the case. I doubt Google will be removing true public records. And no, under SAFE it will more difficult to mine people’s private data for profit from behind an ad based paywall. I see SAFE as a huge boon for profit effiency. If people under 40 already don’t click on ads and it very likely that any SAFE os will out of sheer logic give end users complete control over the end user interface and easy indexed automatic TIVO type overlays will be naturally available I don’t see any future for ads or ad based systems on SAFE. Especially not when conflict-censor-sponsor free search will be available making them totally obsolete. Yep, no right to push, its a coercion free network.

Why are we even discussing this? It’s all on the internet, and yet we’re going back and forth as if we’re going to discover something new…

The ruling was widely criticised for allowing murderers, rapists and paedophiles to erase information about their past

I guess those 18000 requests for Brits alone proves the point. Also sponsored media will cry bloody murder because this is serious threat to sponsorship and spyware but no threat to transparency. Wouldnt surprise me at all if the EU had no interest in pulling links from true non profit entities.