The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Censorship or Right?
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5289
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Censorship or Right?

Spoiler:
Quote:
Google fight over Spanish links

If Google loses its bid to overturn the ruling, it could have consequences across Europe
Google has challenged Spain's data watchdog in court over claims that its search engine invades personal privacy.

The regulator had told the internet giant to delete links to websites that contain out of date or inaccurate information about individuals.

But the company argues that it is publishers - and not search engines - that should be forced to take action.

Google lawyers told Madrid's high court yesterday that deleting results "would be a form of censorship".

The case revolves around a ruling by the Spanish data protection agency, the AEPD, that some search results contravene the country's privacy laws.

In particular, the watchdog says that Google breaks the country's so-called "right to be forgotten" - a law that enables people to control information about them.

Google is hoping to overturn five AEPD adjudications, including one involving a leading surgeon who has complained that the site's search results treat him unfairly.

Publisher or distributor?

The man was charged with criminal negligence in 1991 but later acquitted of any wrongdoing.

When a Google search is conducted on his name, however, only reports about his arrest - not the eventual outcome of the case - are visible.

The AEPD has said that this is wrong, and that in an increasingly digital world the right to be forgotten should include the ability to delete incorrect or out of date information online.

It has sought an injunction against Google to force it to comply, which the company says is a "dangerous" move.

"Asking search engines to withdraw the information in an arbitrary manner is very dangerous," Google lawyer Luis Javier Aparicio Falon told the court.

"Search engines are a fundamental part of the information society, and it would be attacking freedom of expression."

Speaking before the trial started, Google executives said that it was a fundamental error for regulators to treat the engine as a publisher of information, rather than a distributor.

"We are disappointed by the actions of the Spanish privacy regulator," said Peter Barron, Google's director of external relations, in a statement.

"Spanish and European law rightly hold the publisher of material responsible for its content. Requiring intermediaries like search engines to censor material published by others would have a profound chilling effect on free expression without protecting people's privacy."

'Right to forget'

If Google is unsuccessful in its challenge, it will be forced to delete information about the individuals concerned from its Spanish site - as well as respond to another 88 cases also brought by the regulator.

Although the Californian company famously stopped political censorship of its Chinese service last year, it does screen search results in other countries in order to comply with the law.

In the US it blocks sites known to carry material that violates copyright, while in France and Germany it deletes listings for neo-Nazi and race hate groups.

The case could also have an impact outside Spain - particularly since the European Union has said that it is considering applying the right to be forgotten across the entire continent.

"Internet users must have effective control of what they put online, and be able to correct, withdraw or delete it at will," said Viviane Reding, Europe's digital rights commissioner, two months ago.

"The right to be forgotten is essential in today's world."

BBC © 2011


I vote censorship.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hmm. I'm sympathetic to the aims of the Spanish law. However, it's not Google's content, and Google isn't responsible for the veracity/relevance of the sites it links to.

The better avenue, as Google alludes, is (in the example of the surgeon) to contact the people hosting the reports of his arrest and ask them to include links to stories about his acquittal as updates to the story.

The thing that worries me about the way the Spanish law is described is that it appears to be too aggressive; people should not have the right to silence other people discussing them in non-libelous ways.

Author:  Lenas [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'm on Google's side here.

Author:  FarSky [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
But the company argues that it is publishers - and not search engines - that should be forced to take action.

Ayup. Anything else would be ridiculous.

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 1:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

The right to be forgotten? Weird way to say that..more like the right to delete anything bad on you.

Author:  Colphax [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, I don't necessarily agree with a "right to be forgotten", an accquittal is a matter of public record and should be an exoneration and repudiation of an arrest record. The fact that only the arrest is being recorded and remembered is an indicator of the content providers' poor journalism and documentation and not Google's problem as a distributor.

Author:  Hopwin [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Lenas wrote:
I'm on Google's side here.

Ditto.

Imagine asked someone you about a book you had read and they turned around and sued because you didn't tell them about the sequel. Google is not a content-provider they are a search engine that returns data related to your input.

Author:  zxczxcf [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Censorship. Another typical example of governments being stupid.

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

How's the posting from a Droid working for ya, lex?

Author:  zxczxcf [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kirra wrote:
How's the posting from a Droid working for ya, lex?


Pretty good, but I'm on my PC right now. My Droid X is amazing in general. I've very happy with my purchase.

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

iPhone > droid

Author:  zxczxcf [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok, have fun with your small screen.

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok...good point

Ipad > Droid

Author:  zxczxcf [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kirra wrote:
Ok...good point

Ipad > Droid


Can't stick it in my coat pocket.

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 

Don't need a pocket.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

... if you're constantly using it!

Author:  Kirra [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 

Absolutely Kaf :)

Author:  Hannibal [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sounds like a fairness doctrine esque situation. I understand and even agree with the idea of Spains law, but the way they are going about it is wrong. State mandated balance is never going to happen.

Author:  Talya [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Hmm. I'm sympathetic to the aims of the Spanish law. However, it's not Google's content, and Google isn't responsible for the veracity/relevance of the sites it links to.

The better avenue, as Google alludes, is (in the example of the surgeon) to contact the people hosting the reports of his arrest and ask them to include links to stories about his acquittal as updates to the story.

The thing that worries me about the way the Spanish law is described is that it appears to be too aggressive; people should not have the right to silence other people discussing them in non-libelous ways.


I agree.

It's funny, though, that you don't agree when it's something like a peer-to-peer website or application that is "only providing the link" and not hosting any of the infringing files themselves.

Author:  Stathol [ Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

zxczxcf wrote:
Kirra wrote:
Ok...good point

Ipad > Droid


Can't stick it in my coat pocket.

Is that an iPad in your pocket, or ...?

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/