Re:How Google determined our right to be forgotten
by munificent on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @01:09PM
(#9069975)
> I think it would put Google at risk of being found in contempt of the court...
I'm not a lawyer and don't speak for Google, but my understanding is that the regulation prevents you from telling anyone except the relevant parties when a link has been delisted. I think "relevant party" includes who the link is about and the webmaster that owns the link itself.
It would kind of defeat the "right to be forgotten" if Google were to loudly publish a report saying, "Hey, everybody! Forget that Fred Smith did XYZ on this date!"
The reason we know that some things were delisted was because the relevant parties were themselves journalists who then chose to publicize the fact.
So, yes, if Google publicized all delistings, they would violate the legislation. This is something the author of the article certainly knows, so decrying Google for not doing it is disingenuous at best.
I'm not a lawyer and don't speak for Google, but my understanding is that the regulation prevents you from telling anyone except the relevant parties when a link has been delisted. I think "relevant party" includes who the link is about and the webmaster that owns the link itself.
It would kind of defeat the "right to be forgotten" if Google were to loudly publish a report saying, "Hey, everybody! Forget that Fred Smith did XYZ on this date!"
The reason we know that some things were delisted was because the relevant parties were themselves journalists who then chose to publicize the fact.
So, yes, if Google publicized all delistings, they would violate the legislation. This is something the author of the article certainly knows, so decrying Google for not doing it is disingenuous at best.