Google plans to indicate in the issue that the results have been deleted by the demand of the search query figurant
Thus, the story of the decision of the European Court of Justice to allow EU residents to demand that Google remove the inappropriate and irrelevant references from the issue has been continued. How this may look Google users are well known:
Thus, the company expresses its attitude to the court decision, which considers the manifestation of censorship on the Internet: not seeing the remote links directly, the user will still know that there is something to look for - good, Google is not the only search engine in the world.
To add to the weight of its position, Google reports that among the 41,000 requests received as of last Monday, almost a third are fraudulent or inappropriate (scram), one fifth is associated with serious crimes, 12% is related to child pornography. It is easy to calculate that only 35% remains for inquiries to which the good corporation has no complaints. Google executive director Larry Page cited examples of how a “politician with a muddy past”, a convicted pedophile and a person who attempted to kill his family turned up with a request to remove the “sensitive” results of extradition.
')
To more accurately draw the line between the protection of privacy and public interest, Google created a consulting council that included Google’s Chairman Eric Schmidt and a person who was watched by all Wikipedia users - Jimmy Wales. Jimmy believes that the removal of results related to court cases has nothing to do with the protection of privacy, writes the Guardian.
Since censorship is usually called government intervention in the exchange of information in its own interests, while ordinary users have so far been defenseless both before the state and before corporations whose position was voiced by the same Eric Schmidt several years ago: “ If you have something, whatever you want others to find out, maybe you should just stop doing it ”, it would be interesting to know the opinion of Habr:
Thus, the company expresses its attitude to the court decision, which considers the manifestation of censorship on the Internet: not seeing the remote links directly, the user will still know that there is something to look for - good, Google is not the only search engine in the world.
To add to the weight of its position, Google reports that among the 41,000 requests received as of last Monday, almost a third are fraudulent or inappropriate (scram), one fifth is associated with serious crimes, 12% is related to child pornography. It is easy to calculate that only 35% remains for inquiries to which the good corporation has no complaints. Google executive director Larry Page cited examples of how a “politician with a muddy past”, a convicted pedophile and a person who attempted to kill his family turned up with a request to remove the “sensitive” results of extradition.
')
To more accurately draw the line between the protection of privacy and public interest, Google created a consulting council that included Google’s Chairman Eric Schmidt and a person who was watched by all Wikipedia users - Jimmy Wales. Jimmy believes that the removal of results related to court cases has nothing to do with the protection of privacy, writes the Guardian.
Since censorship is usually called government intervention in the exchange of information in its own interests, while ordinary users have so far been defenseless both before the state and before corporations whose position was voiced by the same Eric Schmidt several years ago: “ If you have something, whatever you want others to find out, maybe you should just stop doing it ”, it would be interesting to know the opinion of Habr:
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/225703/
All Articles