1x16: Forgotten to be Right

Let’s imagine that there’s something in your past about which you’re embarrassed; not anything hugely serious such as a crime, but something that you’re not proud of. Obviously, you wouldn’t want to legally prevent anyone from knowing about it – you’ve made that clear – but equally you’d rather people didn’t know about it, if you have the choice.

Step 1: every time I see you in the street, I point at you and shout at the top of my voice “hey! hey everyone standing around! you see @oldgeek over there? He once did (embarrassing thing)! Ha ha ha!”

That’s not all that terrible. It’d get old pretty quickly, and it has the potential to cause you some further embarrassment – imagine you’re walking along the street with a potential client or a potential partner – but it’s not anything massively serious. Also, I’m not going to see you in the street very much; you don’t live near me, and I don’t know what you look like.

Step 2: I pay every shopkeeper and barperson and door guard to do the same thing. Everywhere you go, everything you do, is done to a chorus of people shouting about the thing you did. Everyone who knows you now knows about it. Now, you’ll overcome that embarrassment; you’ll essentially have no choice but to shamefacedly own up to the thing that you did. And that’s OK; we’ve brought a little more clarity to the world, and shown people that they can’t forget the mistakes of the past. But there is a difference between not being able to forget them and being forced to repeatedly acknowledge them over and over and over again. People who you’ve never heard of have now heard of you – you’re the guy that did that embarrassing thing. And that’s all they know about you. They don’t know anything else you’ve done; they don’t care about whatever else you’ve done with your life. All they know is that you’re the guy who did the embarrassing thing. Even if you wanted to correct them, you can’t; you don’t know who they are! And you’re typecast as the embarrassing guy.

One day you wander round to my house and say, dude, why did you do this? Fine, I can’t hide from my past, but I don’t see why I should have my face rubbed in it day after day after day. My life is materially worse off than it was before; I won’t claim that my life’s ruined, but I certainly feel victimised. I don’t see why this one thing I did should colour everything I do for ever more. Everywhere I go people laugh at me; fine, I made a mistake once, but I can’t see how I can erase it; I’ve spent the last few years since then doing nothing but selflessly digging wells in Africa and helping little old ladies across the road, but nobody wants to hear about that! You just keep telling them about the embarrassing thing I did, years and years ago! Why won’t you also tell them about my good deeds? How long do I have to pay?

And I put one finger on my chin, and I roll my eyes up, and say “well, you don’t want to erase history, do you? Are you saying that I’m responsible for you doing that thing?”

The court of public opinion doesn’t have a statute of limitations. And it should.

@sil I do understand the emotion behind what you are saying. I have faced rudeness and ridicule for decades because of my beliefs. Nobody enjoys those things. I certainly don’t.

But, I don’t understand the logic behind the court’s decision. Should it not, under this law, be the source of the data concerned that be affected?

No. The court were emphatic that the issue was not with the source of the data; they firmly stated that the chap in question can’t expunge that data from the historical record, and the actual publisher of the data does not have to remove it. Their issue was, in line with EU data protection laws, that it not be given undue prominence. Now, they have essentially defined “google provide it as a high-ranking search result for the chap’s name” as being undue prominence, which might seem a bit off, but frankly I think that that’s a fair assessment of the level of influence that Google have over the public discourse. Google can’t hide behind the “it’s not our data, we just index and link to it” any more than newspapers can hide behind “we didn’t say this happened, we just reported that someone else said that” defence.

You’re comparing Apples and Whale Blubber there.

Google is providing an indexing and data searching service (in this case). Content that is already published online (publicly) with no restrictions on indexing (cough robot.txt) is being indexed and made searchable.

Newspapers are taking information (public record or not), verifying it as they can (which, all to often, is not really at all) and writing an original piece of content around that information. This may be nothing more than a shell of an article with some quotes in it from an unverified source… but, in that way, it is still technically original.

Let’s come back to this quote for a second:

I don’t see Google as hiding behind that fact. This fact simply states what Google does.

It seems to me what you’re saying is (and, please, correct me if I’m wrong) that it would be preferable for Google to not simply by an indexing/searching service. They should also manually curate the content, disallow some content from being indexed (based on such criteria as “this content gave me a frowny face” or “someone said something true about me but I don’t like truth”), and manually change the search result rankings for content.

Which seems like it’s just begging to be abused (say, by politicians and corporations) until Google is no longer a useful tool in any way, shape or form.

Again we get back to the logic of the court’s decision.

John is looking for x information. He asks Bob who would have such information, for Bob, while not knowing the exact information, almost always knows who has what. Bob tells John that Mike has the information. Mike gives John the information. Bob should be punished for directing John where to ask? Mike should not have to be asked not to give out such information?

This is strengthening what the slogan of the EU (and for every government for that matter) should be. That is? “Completely unencumbered by the thought process.” For this decision seems to be an emotional driven decision and not a logic one.

Now you got me wondering if Whale Blubber could be used to make a nice, light flaky crust for Apple pie! Mmmmmm I love pie.

One thing I haven’t yet seen discussed (unless my skim reading of the above has been poor) is the fact that often parts of reported news get greater prominence than other parts, and the Google effect exacerbates this. And thus the court of public opinion becomes the primary court.

For example: A TV star gets accused of rape. Front page news. Lots of clicks. Same TV star is completely acquitted. Fourth page news. Less clicks. In 5 years time, a Google search for that person is far more likely to bring up the rape story than the acquittal story.

A newspaper story doesn’t have to be libellous to be biased, and I could imagine that having that story expunged from Google might be useful.

At least in the EU. From what I understand, this affects Google only in the EU (Google.de, etc.) and not google.com. So, what is to prevent anyone in the EU to use google.com?

Actually, if this is the case, I could see further embarrassment for someone who wanted their info removed from google’s index and it was found on google.com. I would think even more attention would be brought to it. I could even imagine someone, somehow, getting what these take downs are and posting them.

But that is not what they are doing. They curate the results all be it algorithimically, but it is not just a straight index.

So they are then a Data Controller under the remit of the Data Protection legislation and so have to make sure that the data is accurate relevent, and proportinate.

Accurate based on what standard?

Relevant to whom?

Proportionate to what?

Google displays results based on searches of data that they have indexed. Those results are weighted based on what Google understands to be your desired weighting criteria (as potentially flawed as that may be). If they, however, did not provide any weighting… in what order should the results be displayed?

Chronological order of indexing? Alphabetical? Random order?

Regardless of how they choose to order the displayed results they are immediately veering into the territory of curating data. As such it is impossible to display data in a non-curated way (although we may all agree that the levels of curation may differ).

Honestly the entire argument for “the right to be forgotten” and "Google needs to remove indexed data I don’t like"and “Google needs to adjust how it displays data in order to make me happy”… that whole thing just needs to be better thought out. Right now it is lacking on the implementation specifics and consistency necessary to even make it happen in a way that is at all worth while.

Which… I don’t consider it to be, in any way, worth while.

You’re saying “far more likely”, which means you’re guessing. In actuality, the opposite seems to be true. Take the story of Bill Roache, an actor from long-running UK soap Coronation Street.

In May 2013, he was arrested and then charged with raping a 15 year old girl in 1967. In February 2014, he was found not guilty of all charges. In the intervening months, the press had a field day, essentially convicting Roache in the court of public opinion, if not the court of law.

However, the interesting thing is that if you Google for William Roache, the top stories are “found not guilty”, “to resume role”, “accuser ‘regrets’ speaking out” … these are all stories reflecting the most recent status of what happened, not the most lurid or most sensational.

Maybe there are other examples that demonstrate what you’re talking about, but I just picked one at random, and it doesn’t necessarily hold water.

Not sure whether this is evidence for my argument or against it, but integrity demands I present it.

Why has Google cast me into oblivion?

1 Like

And so it begins.

This doesn’t really make or un-make your argument. But, regardless, I think it blows donkey chunks.

Is that chunks of donkey or chunks that come out of a donkey?

Also, we need to get a handle on this strange donkey obsession we all seem to have. If we don’t it might make us look like asses.

…a…a…a…fankyouverymuch!

1 Like

You’ve now said that on the Internet. And it will never be forgotten. (Unless you’re in Europe.)

@jonobacon said: “we need to get a handle on this strange donkey obsession we all seem to have”

Maybe it’s something deeply rooted in our souls since childhood.

Could that donkey be Eeyore?

To what I understand to be Jono’s point: http://www.wired.com/2014/07/google-right-to-be-forgotten-censorship-is-an-unforgettable-fiasco/

The Guardian: Google accidentally reveals data on ‘right to be forgotten’ requests shows that “95% of Google privacy requests are from citizens out to protect personal and private information – not criminals, politicians and public figures”. So, we may still have disagreements about whether it’s a good idea, but the concern that such a law would be flagrantly misused by public figures attempting to sweep things under the carpet which ought to be publicly known… seems not to have arisen. Instead, it’s about people attempting to restore themselves some measure of personal privacy: that is, it’s being used for what it was intended for. I for one am pleased.

“Only 1,892 requests – less than 1% of the overall total – were successful for the four remaining issue types identified within Google’s source code: “serious crime” (728 requests), “public figure” (454), “political” (534) or “child protection” (176) – presumably because they concern victims, incidental witnesses, spent convictions, or the private lives of public persons.”

That was encouraging that there were so many rejections within these categories. The only troubling word in the paragraph is “presumably”, which I, for one, would like to give Google the benefit of the doubt here.

Edit: Actually, I was surprised as to how many rejections there are in the private personal category. It would be interesting to see Google’s criteria.