The beauty of intended consequences

[Suff]

Did the BBC really not expect this consequence of the ECJ decision; that google could be compelled to "forget" things people find inconvenient?

I mean, I know they have shown an absolutely childlike naivety over laws and consequences over the years. But, really, this is their JOB. They are supposed to understand how this works and the consequences of utterly stupid and far reaching legal decisions.

Did nobody really understand that the media has been relying on the fact that digital media is now, for all intents and purposes, immortal. Unless someone tracks down and destroys every single copy of the particular piece of data, it can re-appear at any time. However they perhaps also did not realise that, just like a book stuffed in the back of a library, if a particular piece of information is not presented by the search engine, then it might as well not exist. Because people will never find it.

Both Peston and the BBC were perturbed. “We’re surprised that this is the outcome of the ECJ ruling and concerned at the implications of the removal from search of this type of material,” said the BBC

So now we know. Not only are they a left wing think tank which presents the "truth" as whatever they wish it to be. They are also a bunch of incompetent boneheads who are being significantly overpaid (anything over £0 is too much for this kind of thinking).

Although, I must admit that through it all I get a small amount of amusement at their indignation.

[Workingman]

When news of this law broke the BBC ran an article in its Features and Analysis pages explaining how it would/could affect things for all and sundry, including Google, in the future.

That leads me to believe that: 1) Someone at the BBC did know of the intended consequences, or 2) The article was a work of fiction based on hearsay and myths or talk around the dining tables of Islington.

I had to laugh at Peston's bleat about being "cast into oblivion" when one poster opined that any action to cast Peston into oblivion had to be good for mankind. The mods removed it PDQ as it broke the house tules.

[Suff]

To me it's just the arrogance. They write articles about the impact to others never expecting that it will happen to them.

The impact to Google is always minimal. The impact to the press is much more.

They're supposed to know that.

[Workingman]

There is a lot of speculation that Google is just playing the game, and why wouldn't it? It has had almost 25,000 requests from France and the UK, so it is not going to get into potentially lengthy and expensive legal arguments when all it has to do is say "yes" to any request and remove the links from its European servers.

Anyone outside of Europe can still access the articles, it is not as though they have been removed from the Internet.

[Suff]

It's a lose lose scenario for Google. The only people who can stop this are us, through our scumbags. erm... Politicians....

[Suff]

In another twist, now the commission is in the firing line. The statement was

In a further twist in the "right to be forgotten" saga Google has been criticised for removing a BBC article from its search results under the ruling by the very same people who brought it in – the European Commission.

Ryan Heath, spokesman for the European Commission's vice-president, said he could not see a "reasonable public interest" for the action. He added that the ruling should not allow people to "Photoshop their lives".

And what exactly did they think this ruling was about? It is nothing more than people being allowed to reinvent themselves without the inconvenience of an unforgettable past. Somewhat like "fast track rehabilitation" without either time to forgive or time to build new relationships.

All part of the all new plastic society where trust and relationships can be thinly coated over broken promises, criminal acts and outright disloyalty.

Blairite decision making from the ECJ.

[Suff]

I missed this bit..

However, some have questioned whether Google's over-zealous deletions of search results might be calculated to show up the European Court's ruling, and create further debate over censorship. The search giant might see this as its only option, since it's unable to appeal the court's decision.

This is a fairly standard approach to stupid legislation. Apply it to the letter of it's stupidity. Until someone else challenges the interpretation at which point the court will have to specify in anal and granular detail where it does and does not apply...

[Workingman]

In my world if I am running a business legally and complying with all the licence requirements that's how things should be. If someone then retrospectively changes the licence requirements I am not going to ruin my business fighting them, even though I do not like the new rules, I will simply go with the flow - 'Work to rule' as the unions would say.

If my behaving like water and taking the easy route makes the lawmakers look like blethering idiots it can hardly be my fault: can it?

If Google does the same, so be it.

[Suff]

Very true. But what originally caught me about this was those who were supposed to report this and to know what the hell they were talking about, got it all wrong.

After all it would not impact google. How many of the general pubilc actually know that to "search" the Internet does not necessarily mean to use Google? The culture has become such that we how have a verb, to Google. Even the French have to Googler which is the verb to use the Google search engine but is more loosely used to define searching on the web.

The fact that there are dozens of search engines on the web has slipped past the general consciousness of our public. Which leads them easily into censorship.

So, honestly, the people who were the losers of this particular piece of slimy legislation, are us and the press. The gainers are those who feel they can do wrong and then just have it conveniently "forgotten" or in the words of the EU Commission, to remake themselves by hiding the past from all but a search based on facts the searchers are already supposed to know. Which is where you reach the point that if you don't already know something about the person in question, being forgotten will mean that you never do get to know about these events in their past.

Another small piece of trust flushes it's way down the toilet on the road to global domination of our rulers. Those who's job it is to tell us about this, fall down on the job, by not even knowing enough about the subject to accurately tell us the impact....