1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Google and the right to be forgotten

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Pete J, 3 Jun 2014.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    I would be in the moobs book :D

    So using the case of Mario Costeja González, are you saying that instead of using the indexing system to find information you should check every web site for any relevant information, or physically visit ever newspaper, every government archive and spend a few months trawling through microfiche records.

    The simple matter is, that by removing entries from the indexing system (Google) all that has been achieved is to make it more difficult, costly, and time consuming to find the information people may need.

    But doing a quick search on the worlds biggest index of the Internet is a darn site quicker and easier than visiting many different sites, and not knowing if you may have missed something.

    Isn't this going a bit OT, however you or I view how the events played out, the fact remains that had she been able to quickly and easily look up his name in an indexing system she would have found out he had a history of domestic violence, and the relationship may not have gone any further than the first contact they had on the internet dating site. It's why the DVDS now exists.

    Yes anyone can make a request, but a request is very different from disclosures.
    Information is only disclosed to someone who is in a position to use the information to protect the person from the abuse, the majority of the time that would be the partner.

    But at the end of the day the DVDS is just an indexing system, sure it may have tighter controls, but in the end what the person does with that information is up to them.

    I would disagree. You have said people shouldn't rely on Google, and also said things like, irrespective of what Google does or doesn't say.
    From my perspective it seems you are saying Google is providing the information, when in fact it is just an indexing system that can make it quicker and easier to find a web page with the information you are looking for.

    Well you are free to disagree but you are wrong IMHO.
    What you are saying is that instead of entering information into one generalised indexing system to quickly and easily find some information that may point you in the right direction. That what we should actually do is search countless other indexing systems, on many different systems to find the information we may need, an hope we haven't missed any indexing systems out.
     
  2. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Depends on what I need to know about him. If I want to know about his finances, I Google for a credit rating agency site and look him up. Then I might Google for bankruptcy rulings for good measure.

    If he were to be my child carer, I check out his professional registration, which will include a check of his qualifications and police record in any case.

    If he were my boyfriend I might access the DVDS --although if he gives me a reason to ask the question, that should in itself already tell me the answer.

    You still have not made that case for me.

    How do you know that Google may not have missed something? It does not index content of credit rating agencies, police records, professional qualifications, bankruptcy rulings --databases that matter. You are effectively relying on someone's crimes and misdemeanours warranting a casual mention in a newspaper at some time, or comments on Facebook, which is the only way it ends up in the Google index.

    Hey, you brought her up. Fact is: she didn't feel the need to Google him. Fact is, we don't know it would have made any difference. But if a woman ignores the clear and present danger literally banging on her front door I am not convinced she would have heeded a newspaper article found via Google.

    Are you saying that legally, an adult woman is deemed unable to protect herself? How Victorian of you.

    And Google is different how? Except for being more random and less reliable?

    No. You are saying that a Google search is a good way of flagging up accurate and relevant information about a person's background. I am saying that it is not. Quicker, yes; easier, yes. Relevant, reliable and accurate? Not at all.

    I am saying that you should access the one or two databases that are specifically created and governed for the purpose of informing you of what you need to know in a particular scenario, and therefore more relevant, reliable and accurate than a blunderbuss Google search --while hoping that it didn't miss anything.
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    And if you wanted a generalised overview of information that those agencies don't deem to be relevant to your situation, or are not legally obliged to tell you, then what ? What if i wanted to do research on a politician before deciding if i should vote for them, or any other number of people. What about all those colorful people we see on TV ripping people of with pressure selling, or shoddy workmanship even after providing glowing recommendations from fake previous customers, etc, etc.

    Well i don't have to, just look at the care.data bill, or the plans to sell peoples TAX records.
    One of the reason for selling our records is to make it easier for people or companies to quickly search all the available information and draw conclusions from it.

    Big data is being used more frequently because having a large database, that can be indexed, is far quicker and simpler than having to search through many different systems. The only difference between the indexing systems is the validity of the information found on them.

    I don't. But then again you don't know that it wouldn't have either.
    I am not saying to rely on Google, I'm saying that it can be used as a quick and easy way to sometimes highlight information that may warrant further investigation, depending on how much importance the individual puts on it.

    The reason i brought her up is because the DVDS indexing system was introduced from the result of her murder, allowing people with concerns to request information from it. Before it was introduced TPTB decided people shouldn't be allowed to know about someone past convictions after being spent, since its introduction it's now up to the individual that the information has been disclosed to, what course of action they wish to take.

    No i was quoting directly from the PDF document published by the Dorset police

    Because now people can ask Google to remove listings in the indexing system, AFAIK people can't apply to be removed from the DVDS, or CRB checks.

    I did ? Please point out where i said Google is a good way of flagging up accurate and relevant information about a person's background. IIRC i have said all along that Google indexes web pages that may have relevant information, that may prompt someone to investigate further.
    Just like all indexing system Google doesn't make judgments on what is relevant, reliable and accurate, that should down to the individual person, or as is the case now a third party to make that decision for you.

    And in turn restrict yourself to the information that has been specifically created and governed by what a third party deems is relevant, reliable and accurate. Rather than all available information and making your own informed decision.
     
  4. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Politicians: treat them all as flawed. Vote for the policy, not the personality.
    Pressure selling: just walk away. The tactic is your warning, right there.
    Tradespeople: check their professional registration. Check if complaints are registered against them. Get recommendations from tradespeople you already know and trust.

    And that is a rather important difference, no? Because Google can't access that data in any case --and what good is information if you can't trust it to be valid?

    And it's the not knowing that's a problem.

    So you say:
    Google search --> flags up something --> investigate further.
    Google search --> flags up nothing --> investigate further.

    What difference does a Google search actually make?

    No, you brought her up as an emotive argument for how a Google search could have saved her life. That is pertinent BS.

    I direct you to page one of that document:

    And on Page 2:

    Google can't even access the DVDS or CRB checks in the first place. So if you have concerns, where do you go?

    So Google provides unreliable data. You don't know whether what it finds is accurate, you don't even know whether Google not finding anything is accurate. What use is it, really?

    FTFY.
     
  5. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    95
    This isn't about removing the data, just about allowing the rich to alter public perceptions of thier image.
     
  6. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    I think this is the crux of the debate here, and where I think there is some misunderstanding. You argue that the results of your FBI background checks should be private or only available to legitimate users. I tend to agree with that. Does the FBI store background checks on an open server, with all of the data freely available to the public? If not, then nothing has really changed with this legislation. I don't think anyone here is arguing that such information should be available to Google's search index. If the FBI is hosting your records out in the open where Google's index can find them, then you need to petition the FBI for better security.

    There is a difference between public information (e.g. the kind of information I can get from my local tax assessor's web page regarding the the houses in my neighborhood) and information that is freely available to the public. In this case performing an internet search for your property taxes would not lead me to your tax records, but would lead me to the county tax office - where I can look up your name and address.

    There is a legitimate argument about the right to privacy, but responsibility for that should fall on the individual and the entity hosting the information in the first place, not on Google's indexing system. If you are truly concerned about me taking your past indiscretions out of context, hiding them from Google isn't going to help you if I can still look up the story using a newspaper's search page - interestingly some of which are powered by Google boxes.
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    If only life was so simple, sadly it is not. Many politicians allow their personality to effect policy.
    Would you vote for one arrested in the past for racism, or for one who was arrested for corruption, or any other number of past misdemeanors.
    And when you have invited the person into your house for a demonstration, as a lot of elderly people have done.
    People have been duped by professional registrations many times, such as using a fake corgi registrations.
    Who would these complaints be registered with, AFAIK Trading standards don't publish every, or any complaints they receive.
    What if it's the first time you have hired a builder and don't know any that can recommend another.

    Not rely. Not trusting if information is valid is a long way from it being incorrect, if it is incorrect you seek to correct it, you don't just decide to remove it from the decision making process until it can be proven either valid or invalid.

    Something that will be increasing common now people can remove entries from the indexing system.

    No. You seem to have a very black and white view on what does or doesn't cause people to become suspicious or doubt someone.
    If you want me to write pages and pages explaining why someone, or what situations may cause someone to do a cursory search of Google on a person or company to find out what kind of results they get back then i fear you are being deliberately obtuse.

    Sorry but what part of this...
    Mentions Google ?

    Sorry but what does any of what you quoted from that document have to do with you asking the following...
    If you want to call a document published by Dorset police Victorian then fine, but I'm not sure that is relevant to people being able to remove entries from an indexing system.

    No one said they could, all three are indexing system.
    It's just that two are controlled by TPTB and only provide people with information they deem to be relevant, reliable and accurate.
    The other is an open system that allows the actual person viewing the information to make up their own mind on what is relevant, reliable and accurate.

    Google doesn't provide any data, it just indexes the internet and allows people to make their own minds up, if the data you find using the indexing system is unreliable should you just leave that information as it is, and remove the entry in the indexing system. Or should you seek to correct the actual information.
    You also don't know if the information you find is inaccurate, that is why if you find information you either research further if it's important to you, or dismiss it as unimportant to you.

    The point is that choice is left to the person viewing the information, not some third party that deems you are not mature enough to know your own mind, or to make your own decisions.

    Sorry but since when has Google passed judgment on what is relevant, reliable and accurate ?
    Well that is before the right to be forgotten.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Would I need to search Google to become aware of the interesting past of a politician running for office? Or would the news do that for me?

    You're right: vulnerable elderly people would be a lot safer if they could tell such a person: "Hang on there, Sir. Allow me to Google your name first". :p

    Let me Google that for you: http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/

    Let me Google that for you: http://www.checkatrade.com/

    You can't correct something you read on the internet (Jen). You can only verify it by cross-checking with a reliable and accurate sources.

    We are not talking about what motivates someone to check up on someone; just whether a Google search is a relevant, reliable and accurate way of doing it. I am saying it is not.

    Well...
    ...in the context of arguing against people being able to remove links to their past from Google.

    See below:
    My point: the majority fo the time an adult woman is capable of protecting herself, so she is the first person this information is disclosed to.

    Actually, I called your assertion Victorian (in jest, you understand) and point out that the document you raise as the basis of that assertion actually challenges it. Do keep up.

    Since it wrote the search algorythm. Different algorythms create different results (hence different search engines produce slightly different results and there are wars about which produces the most relevant, reliable and accurate ones). Since what is a relevant, reliable and accurate search result is, to an extent, a subjective interpretation (see the search engine wars again), some guys at Google have to pass judgement on the effectiveness of the algorythm. They don't do that with any censorship agenda, but you are basically relying on a commercial company to decide what is a relevant, reliable and accurate result to your search.

    There are a lot of good, sound reasons why people should not be able to request that Google removes search results to embarrassing/inconvenient/awful truths about their past. The principle of freedom of information is one. The total impracticability of complying with such requests is another. But the idea that it should not happen because otherwise people cannot check up on the trustworthiness of a business, professional or potential date is a rather weak argument that undermines that position.
     
    Last edited: 5 Jun 2014
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Well going on what UKIP was claiming running up to the recent local elections, and a quick search of Google. I would say Google is a more reliable source of impartial information than the news channels.

    With all the claims that UKIP is a racists party, how much did they cover the following
    17 Lib/Lab/Con councillors arrested, charged or convicted of offences.

    But lets not forget that if TPTB had a choice in the matter Google wouldn't return any results if we searched for such information, because some of those Councillors may have applied to have the links to such articles removed 5, 10, or 20 years from now.

    What you mean before they book an appointment for someone to come around their house.

    And that just goes to prove how someone could be conned by an unscrupulous person
    Just taking one quote from people working in the industry that Cambridge news reported on.
    That just goes to show how relying purely on just one of these official indexing systems are not always a good idea, having a single system to check for a such things will always lead to a single point of failure.
    Sorry but how is that any different than using any other indexing system.

    Since when has it not been possible to correct information on a web page, are you trying to say you can't ask the person responsible for posting it to correct it, are you trying to say people can't be taken to court and forced to retract what they have said.

    What motivates someone to check up on another person is vital part of any indexing system, if the indexing system is quick, simple, easy to use, with a high chance of leading you to information you may find relevant, people are more likely to check the information.

    If it takes time, is complicated, difficult to use, with a high chance you may not get information that is relevant, people are less likely to use it unless they have to, or are strongly motivated.

    No, in the context of the DVDS being created specifically so people can use it to either confirm or refute their suspicions or someone else claims.


    It has nothing to do with an adult woman being capable of protecting herself, that is a totally sexist point of view.
    The documents i used says normally the information would be divulged to the partner, not because a woman can or can't protect her self, because the partner, be that person a male or female, would be the person most closely effected and able to make the decision on what they want to do.

    That isn't the search engine passing judgement on what is relevant, reliable and accurate.
    At most it is using profiling system to make a judgment on what is relevant, not on what is reliable and accurate.

    Yet all of those things are part of the freedom of information, just because you view them as weak or because you can't see the need for it doesn't mean it's not important, or less important.
    You may want to take the higher ground and dismiss how important certain information is to other people, but that doesn't make the information they want any less important than yours.
     
  10. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    Is Google really the source of any impartial information, or are you using Google to search for relevant information and using the search results as an initial aggregator of various news sources?
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Wait wait wait. I thought that you said that Google is just an index of information. You know, from a.o. news channels.

    No, because Google would argue it is in the public interest. So sue us, let's see who has the biggest legal budget, councillor. Let's see if that lawsuit doesn't attract just the kind of attention you wish to avoid. Case closed.

    Yeah, because we all know that vulnerable elderly people are real Google ninjas. :p

    Are you saying that someone can fake their way onto the CORGI registry website?

    Point is: I found it by using Google! And no tradesman can apply to have that link removed because it refers to a site, not them personally! The system works!

    I'm saying that you are going off on irrelevant argument again. Back on topic.

    Again: a Google search is easier, quicker, but not more relevant, reliable or accurate. And again: people will just have to decide for themselves how much time and effort the safety of their money, their children or themselves is worth.

    And isn't it a far better system than a pot-luck Google search?

    If by "partner" you mean the woman who is making the application, and not her partner, i.e. the person she is making the application about, then I think we were just labouring under a mutual misunderstanding.

    Still a commercial company making a judgement for you.

    But that is not what you have been arguing. You have been arguing that it is indispensable as the most accessible way people can find out important information. I'm saying that it is not.
     
  12. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    112
    I think you're making 95% of my argument for me. I would only add that a larger data set is becoming available, such as tax and property records, all the time. Obviously, the FBI data isn't indexed.

    But there is also the larger issue of what bits of your past should be allowed to sink from sight. Google, being the largest of the search engines, is holding a lot of moments in people's lives that I think they have a legitimate right remove from a quick google.

    It's actually becoming a source, with the implementation of G+. Even if they are just pulling the AP feed for now, I can see where they could easily move to a perceived source rather then just an aggregator.
     
  13. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    And it is, I used Google's indexing of the internet to find the article on that web site.
    They didn't pass any judgment on how relevant, reliable or accurate it was, but who knows in a few years after receiving a requests to remove that entry from their index they may well do just that.

    Yea because it's not like someone will take them to the European courts and force them to remove it or anything is it, Oh wait that's just what Mario Costeja González done.

    Nice. Let's not only insult women, but also the elderly.

    No. I'm not saying anything, it's industry insiders that are saying it.
    Like it or not, no official database or index system is perfect, and it pays to do your own research, that is if the person or company hasn't removed any negative information of them selves from search engines.

    So Google's indexing system directed you to another indexing system ? The only problem with that is the first one allows entries in it's indexing system to be removed, and the second one only covers companies that pay £1000 to sign up to it, you only have to look at some independent feedback to see it doesn't work.

    No you said...
    IMHO that is totally relevant, as it shouldn't be Google removing the entry's from its indexing system, it should be the original site that corrects the information.

    Google search isn't anything other than an indexing system, what results you get from that indexing system may or may not be relevant, reliable or accurate. That is a decision that each individual person should be allowed to make, not some third party.

    Neither is better or worse, each have there advantages and disadvantages.

    No. I mean partner as in the person with whom one cohabits in a romantic relationship, be that a male or a female. It's the 21st century people of the same sex do have romantic relationship you know.

    But not (until the right to be forgotten) a judgment on what is reliable and accurate.
    Simply a judgment on what you may find relevant, based on days, week, month or even years of profiling what you have searched for in the past, i would prefer that to the alternative. A third party who doesn't know the first thing about me passing judgment on what is relevant.

    Yes it is accessible, because it indexes the vast majority of publicly accessible information, the level of importance each person places on that information is entirely subjective, what i find important someone else may find useless, and visa versa.

    And i wouldn't say it's indispensable as even with out a global indexing system people would still be able to find the information they need, the problem comes when that information becomes more effort to find than they are willing to invest.

    Ask your self the question, are we better off today in a world where information is a mere 5-10 min search on the internet away, or when we may have had to spend hours if not days looking up the same information.
    That ability to look up information in 5-10 min has been diminished by the right to be forgotten, the global indexing system can now be edited to paint a different picture, to only present the information people wish to present, to hide past transgressions in the shadows.
     
    Last edited: 6 Jun 2014
  14. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    And Google can simply refuse. Legal hilarity ensues.

    Ad hominem attacks get you nowhere, kiddo.

    Where are industry insiders saying that?

    It is quite obvious that nobody can ask for a general link to a website to be removed, because it does not involve a statement about them personally. But you know that. And dude, comparing conmen and cowboys to someone who simply did not show up to give a quote? Grasping at straws much?

    No, you are dissembling by pursuing a totally irrelevant topic. You want to perform a quick and convenient search. You don't want to spend time and effort on a more detailed search of more reliable and accurate databases. But you do have time and effort to spare to email or petition sites to correct inaccurate information that you don't know is inaccurate because if you did you wouldn't need to do a search in the first place. Sure. Dissembling.

    That is a different argument, about freedom of information, not indispensability.

    More ad hominem attacks. So disappoint.

    So you are saying that when a person in a relationship makes an enquiry about their partner's domestic violence background, the police will release that information to said partner, and not the person making the enquiry? Apart from this making no sense whatsoever, the document you mentioned to support your argument actually contradicts it. But hey, keep implying I'm sexist and homophobic, because that is such a solid argument. :p

    Broken record. I have already demonstrated that it does not take significantly increased time and effort to Google the information from more relevant, reliable and accurate sources that you should be getting it from anyway. Ease of access is pointless if what you access is unreliable. You have failed to make your case, IMHO. You have meanwhile accused me of ageism and sexism with a dash of homophobia. Well done you. I bow to your compelling argument. :p
     
    Last edited: 6 Jun 2014
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    You mean like they did with Mario Costeja González ? And only 5 years after the case had been brought before the courts.

    Well in case you have forgotten from the link i posted last night, they are saying it right here, Cambridge news reported on

    But this isn't a general link this is your much lauded indexing system to look up how good or bad a tradesman is, being shown to not work. If six pages of people complaining that your indexing system isn't working for various reasons why should it be trusted ?

    Not seeking address with a web site that has published inaccurate information maybe totally irrelevant to you, but many people including the courts would disagree with you.

    IIRC i have never said that i don't want to spend time and effort on a more detailed search, what i have said though is that information in a generalised index could prompt people to investigate further, the opposite of what you claim i don't want to do.

    Mario Costeja González claimed the information displayed when he performed a search needed changing and he had the time, money and effort to trying changing that. He spent years trying to force the original publishes to remove it and when that failed he decided to go after the indexing system.

    An argument that was not being discussed when you said...
    To which i replied that Google search isn't anything other than an indexing system, do keep up.

    I give as i receive.

    No the DVDS law states that the person making the enquiry may not be the recipient of the information, in fact an enquiry doesn't even have to be made.
    You can question the law as much as you like, make claims that it makes no sense, or contradicts its self, but for me personally it make perfect sense, perhaps if i quote directly from the PDF of the leaflet it will make more sense.
    And in case you get confused as to whom receives the information, they go on to explain that also.
    Makes sense now ?

    And i have already demonstrated your much lauded relevant, reliable and accurate sources are anything but. Having a single place to get information will always lead to a single point of failure, having many sources of information will always lead you to a better overall understanding.

    Limiting your self to only one source of any information will always lead to an incomplete, biased view.

    I apologies if you feel i have accused you of ageism and sexism with a dash of homophobia, but IMHO that is what you have exhibited when you thought a partner meant it must be a woman, that woman can't protect herself, and then suggested that vulnerable elderly people can't use a computer.
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    I'm sorry that you feel so wound up about this that it's getting personal. Debating is supposed to be fun, and I get the sense that it's not fun any more. Moreover you appear to read in my posts what you feel the need to read --hell, you're reading in your own stuff what you feel the need to read, and that is not a sound basis for a rational debate. Neither is trying to disprove someone's argument by casting doubt on their character or misrepresenting their statements. They're tactics you've been picked up on before, and it makes you seem duplicitous and well, needing to be right at all cost. I'll walk away now because I think it would not be productive to discuss this any further.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm not dismissing you personally and I respect your strong beliefs in freedom of information and agree with them; I just don't think that your arguments in this thread have been very convincing. But we can agree to disagree and still be civil to each other. So let's stop here before we are tempted into undignified name calling and the flinging of poo. :)
     
    Last edited: 6 Jun 2014
  17. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,929
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    I don't know what to think.

    Anyone can file the request. Google can still say no. Eh. I don't see it affecting anyone in the long run.
     
  18. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    'Right to be forgotten': BBC, The Guardian, Daily Mail push back on Google
    http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/right-to-be-forgotten-bbc-the-guardian-daily-mail-push-back-on-google-20140703-zsu9a.html
    Maybe now it's effecting the newspapers they will take some type of action.
    Decisions on removing content needs to be handled by the courts, not private companies.
    It needs to be between the publisher of the information and the person wanting it removed.
     
    Last edited: 3 Jul 2014
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,272
    Likes Received:
    1,697
    Set search engines for google.com, problem solved.
     
  20. Risky

    Risky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    10 Sep 2001
    Posts:
    4,308
    Likes Received:
    95
    Actually I think you have to use http://www.google.com/ncr

    Which shows how stupid a decision it was as it's unenforcable. But in any case look at what it's achieving

    Protection former bank bosses:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28130581

    And more deserving cases:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...-Telegraph-story-links-deleted-by-Google.html

    So we have a law that protects people who don't need protecting, at no doubt substatial cost to little effect.

    "The law is an ass" seems to cover it well enough.
     

Share This Page