Originally posted by xoggoth
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Google reinstates 'forgotten' links after pressure"
Collapse
-
-
On one issue most of us (and indeed most people generally) agree.
Those counting threads in light relief are very dull. Can we have a thread where we all post ways to kill Tony Blair or would that count as illegal hate speech?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ZARDOZ View PostIt's getting really pathetic now
Google Street View removes Tony Blair, Paul McCartney and Katherine Jenkins' homes | Mail Online
I had hopes for a while...
Leave a comment:
-
Google says it has always been possible for those with 'compelling case' to have images of their homes removed
Leave a comment:
-
It's getting really pathetic now
Google Street View removes Tony Blair, Paul McCartney and Katherine Jenkins' homes | Mail Online
Leave a comment:
-
I do find this funny.
Many pointless celebs, ploticians etc do everything they can to get into the public eye...
oh but now when it seems that all that stuff you did in the public eye is now going to be available for ever there seems to be a problem.
hmmm maybe if you weren't such a publicity whore in the first place you would not have a problem would you now.
fookin leeches
Leave a comment:
-
..
Originally posted by scooterscot View PostWait a minute. If I've forgotten something I'll not remember it to renew in my memory. So how would I know I'm reinstating something I've forgotten?
BBC News - Google reinstates 'forgotten' links after pressure
Leave a comment:
-
Google reinstates 'forgotten' links after pressure
Wait a minute. If I've forgotten something I'll not remember it to renew in my memory. So how would I know I'm reinstating something I've forgotten?
BBC News - Google reinstates 'forgotten' links after pressure
Google reinstates 'forgotten' links
4 July 2014 Last updated at 10:13 GMT By Dave Lee Technology reporter, BBC News
Google message in front of screenGoogle has said the "right to be forgotten" process is "difficult" and "evolving"
After widespread criticism, Google has begun reinstating some links it had earlier removed under the controversial "right to be forgotten" ruling.
Articles posted online by the Guardian newspaper were removed earlier this week, but have now returned fully to the search engine.
Google has defended its actions, saying that it was a "difficult" process.
"We are learning as we go," Peter Barron, head of communications for Google in Europe, told the BBC.
Speaking to Radio 4's Today programme, he dismissed claims made on Thursday that the company was simply letting all requests through in an attempt to show its disapproval at the ruling.
"Absolutely not," he said. "We are aiming to deal with it as responsibly as possible.
“Start Quote
A few automated messages later, the story is back in the headlines - and Google is likely to be happy about that”
James Ball The Guardian
"The European Court of Justice [ECJ] ruling was not something that we welcomed, that we wanted - but it is now the law in Europe and we are obliged to comply with that law."
He said Google had to balance the need for transparency with the need to protect people's identity.
'Memory hole'
Mr Barron argued that the search giant was doing its best to comply with the ECJ's ruling, which stated that links to web pages can be removed from search engine if they are deemed to be "outdated, irrelevant or no longer relevant".
The ruling has come under particular scrutiny after BBC economics editor Robert Peston was notified that a blog post he had written in 2007 would be removed from appearing when a specific search was carried out on Google.
Rory Cellan-Jones reports: ''The right to be forgotten imposed on Google... is now swinging into action''
The identity of the person who made the request is not yet known, although Google has confirmed it is not the subject of the article, former Merrill Lynch boss Stan O'Neal.
Instead, the request relates to the reader comments that appear underneath the story.
Elsewhere, the Guardian's special projects editor James Ball wrote that six of the newspaper's articles had "fallen down the memory hole".
Back in the headlines
A source has confirmed to the BBC that the Guardian articles have now been re-indexed for all relevant search terms.
Mr Ball joined those saying that Google's actions may have been "tactical".
"There are very few news organisations in the world who are happy to hear their output is being stifled," he said.
"A few automated messages later, the story is back in the headlines - and Google is likely to be happy about that."
His thoughts echoed those of Ryan Heath, spokesman for the European Commission's vice-president, who described the decision to remove a link to Peston's blog as "not a good judgement".
"Google clearly has a strong interest in making sure that they're able to work with whatever the legal requirements are, so they position themselves in a particular way over that," he said.
"It doesn't come cheap to deal with all of these requests, so they need to find some way to come up with dealing with them."
He added that the ruling should not allow people to "Photoshop their lives".
Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBCTags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Today 07:16
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Yesterday 21:16
- IR35: Substitution — updated for 2025/26 Yesterday 05:45
- Payment request to bust recruitment agency — free template Sep 16 21:04
- Why licensing umbrella companies must be key to 2027’s regulation Sep 16 13:55
- Top 5 Chapter 11 JSL myths contractors should know Sep 15 03:46
- Top 5 Chapter 11 JSL myths contractors should know Sep 14 15:46
- What the housing market needs at Autumn Budget 2025 Sep 10 20:58
- Qdos hit by cybersecurity ‘attack’ Sep 10 01:01
- Why party conference season 2025 is a self-employment policy litmus test Sep 9 09:53
Leave a comment: