BBC forgotten list 'sets precedent'

The BBC has "set a precedent" for other media organisations by publishing a list of links removed from Google searches, the corporation's policy boss has said.

The links were removed as part of the "right to be forgotten" ruling put in place by the European court.

It allows individuals to request certain links do not show up when a person searches their name.

BBC forgotten list 'sets precedent'

I am in two minds about the "right to be forgotten". On the one hand I think that people who have been falsely accused, or slighted maliciously deserve their privacy. However, on the other hand what is reported in the news is a public record so should not be "hidden", although in reality they are just hidden from Google results. This is deceitful.

I also have concern that people now have the power to impose censorship on their behalf, which is worrying.

I think this is a brave decision by the BBC, although it probably won't turn up on Google if you look!

> Right to be forgotten - Wikipedia
> Right to be forgotten US implications - Guardian
> Report to UK Parliament
> Potential abuse of the system - Independent

Well, it's a difficult area alright. I don't believe though, that Google should a lone arbiter in any censoring, and what's in a name?? it could be anybody, and the subject matter unrelated anyway. The whole thing is probably automated, and thereby hamfisted, and is. I've had many messages at the bottom of search about the privacy without a clue of what they are on about.

a reply to: paraphi

Personally I dont think this should be extended to corporations and or companies. I mean think about a rouge trader, a cowboy builder or something like that, can they just request Google remove it because it happened a few years ago and then get it removed. the BBC will constantly do this, they will remove anything that they see as damaging. It is just the beginning of this, they are testing the waters.

a reply to: paraphi

I think the right to be forgotten is nonsense.

In a world where a great deal of problems are directly related to a refusal or inability on the part of society, to learn from the past, the better to avoid errors made in times gone by, it makes little sense to me, for individuals, organisations, and so on, to be able to request that their notable errors or crimes be forgotten by the internet, or in any way buried.

For example, there is an individual who used to be a teacher in my area, who is also a convicted possessor of indecent images of children. He should not have the right to apply to google, to have any negative press about him buried. He has never served a days jail time for his crimes because the justice system is singularly stupid when it comes to certain offences, and so he has not paid his dues, if it even possible to actually pay for that kind of crime at all.

I am sure that there are folk out there, who have a genuine, and legitimate need to have press reportage and information about them made more difficult to acquire. But that number of people is small, and the number of people who may try to access this obfuscatory function will include far more nefarious persons, than persons with a legitimate need for enforced privacy.

There are those who should never be allowed to hide in obscurity, and it is vital that only those with a legitimate reason to wish their information buried, are able to access the ability to veil themselves behind walls of data.

a reply to: Dwoodward85

The trader was a shade of red?

originally posted by: paraphi

I am in two minds about the "right to be forgotten". On the one hand I think that people who have been falsely accused, or slighted maliciously deserve their privacy. However, on the other hand what is reported in the news is a public record so should not be "hidden", although in reality they are just hidden from Google results. This is deceitful.

I also have concern that people now have the power to impose censorship on their behalf, which is worrying.

I think this is a brave decision by the BBC, although it probably won't turn up on Google if you look!

]

Sometimes things are not always as they seem. Governments have access to whole benches of experts in universities, think tanks, industry etc, who can answers questions like " if we did x what or where would it lead to, how would it pan out, what would the end result. For this reason governments always know what the results of their actions will be before they even pass a given law.

These experts are able turn the questions around and say to government, If you want to achieve y, make x law.

You can be fairly certain that this is what the government has done. You can be certain that what they done in this instance was to achieve a specific objective even it is nothing more then that it fits into a long term plan.

a reply to: sputniksteve

I dont know what you're asking but if its what a Rogue Trader is, it is someone who is basically a con artist and cheat people out of money when they're paid to do a job, for example, if you hire a repairman to fix your washing machine and it should only cost twenty quid (bucks) and he charges one hundred, he is conning you and is a Rogue Trader either that or he has done such a bad job but still demands and takes the money.

(If someone can explain that better please do)

a reply to: Dwoodward85

I was teasing you for spelling it Rouge in the original post. Sorry it was immature of me.