The irony is beyond what I feel I can safely process on my own. So the BBC will maintain a list of the information Google is to remove links for. And this list will be continually updated. You know what would make that list easier to manage might be an index. Yes, an index! One that can be searched… with some kind of browser!
Save me, Escher!
EB
If I understand this right, the BBC will maintain a list of pages that it has received removal notices for. The result would seem to be, to me, even more attention given than if the notice was not issued in the first place. Kind of negates the purpose of desiring to be forgotten, which could lead to even greater embarrassment.
[quote=“oldgeek, post:2, topic:8269”]
The result would seem to be, to me, even more attention given than if the notice was not issued in the first place[/quote]
That I think, is kind of the point. Just because someone wants something they did in the past to be forgotten it does not mean they should necessarily be allowed to have it forgotten.
We don’t want to punish someone unnecessarily for a stupid mistake they made several years ago but we should not allow individuals, governments or corporations to cover up their history just because some of it may now be embarrassing.
This right to be forgotten is a solution powered by emotion, so a solution that has not much thought into it. Never the less, I do try to empathize with the individuals, who might have a more delicate constitution (I am struggling here just how to put that description), that might have something out there that embarrasses them terribly. But this not indexing the website is a poor solution.
I do appreciate the BBC not listing why the take down notice was given. One has to read the articles and determine that themselves.