1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Massive Potential Fallout After Google Lose In Final Court Ruling:

Discussion in 'The Attic' started by dunover, May 13, 2014.

    May 13, 2014
  1. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    After this case going on for years, Google are in potential big trouble legally after this ruling, concerning the 'right to be forgotten'.
    It basically means that old negative stories about an individual should not appear FIRST when the person is searched, even if little has been subsequently added since.
    I suppose it's meant to have the same effect as a 'spent' criminal conviction not being allowed a mention after a certain period of time.
    This theoretically means individuals can ask for certain Google pages to be removed from view or down ranking.
     
    5 people like this.
  2. May 13, 2014
  3. Mousey

    Mousey Ueber Meister Mouse CAG

    Occupation:
    Pencil Pusher
    Location:
    Up$hitCreek
    I haven't delved into this but.....

    I think of Google search as a tool. I put a word in, up pops the results. I do not expect Google to police/organize/sanitize/sort/whitewash the results before giving it to me... no more than I expect my calculator to scream 'no, you cannot afford that new handbag you've been eyeballing' while punching in numbers to balance my checkbook.
     
    3 people like this.
  4. May 13, 2014
  5. dunover

    dunover Unofficial T&C's Editor Staff Member CAG PABnononaccred PABnonaccred PABinit mm3 webmeister

    Occupation:
    International Money Launderer
    Location:
    the bus shelter, opposite GCHQ Benhall
    Yes, but Google to have responsibility at some level as to your rights similar to those rights we enjoy in advanced countries that have developed over the centuries. They cannot operate outside of any laws or regulation under the guise of 'Oh! it's there, we just send it to your computer and sod the consequences'. The Spanish bloke who brought the case basically had a house repossessed years ago and objected to the fact that this was the first listing G came up with when he was searched, despite the matter being sorted out over a decade ago.
    And above all, Google are perfectly prepared to 'organize/sort' results when it suits them financially.

    I can see the side of both G and the plaintiff here.
     
  6. May 13, 2014
  7. osulle

    osulle Ueber Meister CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    life
    Location:
    Northern hemisphere
    Thanks for the info. Not sure if I agree with the ruling as who has the responsibility to deem what is inadequate or outdated? The guy that brought the case had his house foreclosed wouldn't that be a public record? I think if a google search comes up with results that are proven to be untrue should be removed. There are companies out there that will sanitize your digital footprint. I remember reading about this last week.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. May 13, 2014
  9. osulle

    osulle Ueber Meister CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    life
    Location:
    Northern hemisphere
    I want my tin foil hat

    In the last couple of years I see more and more of 1984 coming true. Stories such as these ramp up my paranoia radar. Well that and CCTV cameras that watch my every move when I leave the house:eek:
     
    3 people like this.
  10. May 13, 2014
  11. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    That's the hole Google dug themselves into. They are not merely an impartial search engine, they have always been manipulating the results and giving "dishonest" returns based on what makes them the most money, rather than what is genuinely the most relevant set of results for a given query. They even supply tools so that web designers can tune their sites to outrank possibly more relevant, but untuned sites.

    Now that Google regularly mess about with the results it returns, it seems to have voluntarily taken on a duty of care in how it does this, and this case has now made Google legally liable to not only intervene for it's own gain, but to intervene in order to protect the rights of others.

    There is a downside to this though, bad people could now use this ruling to hide their past, and this could enable them to get away with further misdeeds because even when people do their research first, they will have negative information hidden, but positive information enhanced. Google would probably comply with future requests rather than face further defeats in court.

    It also seems odd that in effect, the court has ruled that public records can be deliberately hidden, even though these records are by law supposed to be freely available to public scrutiny.

    I bet MPs will be making use of this court ruling in order to sanitise their past in the run up to elections.
     
    3 people like this.
  12. May 13, 2014
  13. osulle

    osulle Ueber Meister CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    life
    Location:
    Northern hemisphere
    I wonder if this ruling could be applied to companies? If so we could be seeing rogue casinos hiding their own bad image. Just a thought.
     
  14. May 13, 2014
  15. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It seems this directive is aimed at protecting individuals, not so much companies. Big companies can afford SEO experts to bury bad information in any case, and this is seen in action with many rogue casinos. There is also a public interest issue, so the public interest of being able to research the past history of a company before parting with money would probably outweigh the commercial interests of the company of burying it's past.

    Google tried to pull the "but our servers are in the US so we don't have to obey" argument, but it was slapped down by the EU court. Funny how EU customers are bound by US laws when it suits Google, Microsoft, and others, yet when things are the other way around, they pull the jurisdiction argument.

    Well, online casino servers are based in Malta, and under Maltese law, can offer gambling offshore, the "Google argument" would, if successful, mean that the US would have no jurisdiction in terms of prohibiting casinos based there from accepting US customers, yet the US feels they DO have this right to force offshore casinos to enforce US laws, and any company executive who refuses can (and has been) opportunistically arrested should they stray onto US soil.

    The US should be thankful that Google lost, as they can use the same "...but provides service to.." argument to assert that offshore casinos must adhere to US laws if providing their services to US customers.

    Of course, Google isn't the only search engine, so once it becomes known that Google are sanitising searches on request, people who want to see ALL the information on someone, not a censored sample, will turn to other means.

    If someone wrote a search application that performed all searches from scratch, and was sold "as is" to subscribers, it would come with no mechanism for censoring results, manipulating rankings, etc. It would crawl the web afresh each time, and gather EVERYTHING that was present. The downside is that it would take a long time through having no indexing, but those using it would know that nothing would be deliberately hidden from it.

    I wonder if this is a prospect that worries Google, because it would be legally unable to compete with such a service because of it's size, availability to justice, and this court ruling.

    They are exaggerating somewhat, because they already have a system in place for censoring links upon request from the major US media conglomerates, and this involves many thousands of links which change on a daily basis. It appears that what they don't like is being answerable to the everyday individual in this regard, because they would have to introduce a similar "shoot first, and wait for the complaints" system as they use for taking down anything that might conceivably infringe copyright, even if it doesn't. Many have had non-infringing content removed by mistake, and have found it next to impossible to appeal the decision. It seems likely that if implemented, individuals could have a "shoot first" system that would take down the link, and then might put it back up if someone argues that there is a public interest case. In effect, this would not happen very often, so individuals would end up with the same power as the big media conglomerates. Hurt the most would be those companies that make a living from gathering up our personal data from a variety of sources, packaging it up, and then selling it on in various forms. That's another business arm of Google is it not:p
     
    2 people like this.
  16. May 13, 2014
  17. osulle

    osulle Ueber Meister CAG mm4 mm1

    Occupation:
    life
    Location:
    Northern hemisphere
    Now I have a headache:p
    I don''t agree with large companies allowing to get negative searches buried by Google. I don't think they should sanitize results at all. I mean what if a murderer or sex offender were able to get the information removed from Google? I mean in some European companies prison time for murder isn't that long and sex offenders get less time. Should these people be allowed to bury their Google results? According to this ruling they certainly can. So I guess there are two sides to every story.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page