[andrewgioia]

> Google says a removal request will be considered if the search result in question includes the presence of “explicit or implicit threats” or “explicit or implicit calls to action for others to harm or harass.”

Apparently they've always had a process for bank account info and other related things, but I can't get some of the newly included items, like login credentials, removed unless I can show actual or implicit threats of harm?

[dannysullivan]

I work for Google Search. We're working to clear this up. Threat is not required to remove the listed PII. I'll repeat what I shared in another comment here:

There is NO requirement of threat to remove anything listed as personally identifiable information on this page (such as personal contact info, medical records, login credentials, etc): https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/9673730

Beyond those things listed, in some cases someone who is being threatened might feel there's additional information that someone might feel is somehow personally identifying. This is where the doxxing/threat option can be used, for something not on the list where no threat is required.

Appreciate this is confusing to some; we'll be looking at how to clarify that.

[andrewgioia]

Thanks I really appreciate the clarification, this is a great addition.

[donthellbanme]

"We generally aim to preserve information access if the content is determined to be of public interest. This includes but isn't limited to:

Content on or from government and other official sources Newsworthy content Professionally-relevant content"

1. This removal process does not remove those public information aggregator sites, like "Who lives here.whatever", "Didthispersoneverappearincourt.com". The problem with the court aggregator sites is they are wrong some times. I imagine Google makes a ton of money off them though?

2. Google should remove all personal details, unless a person was in the news.

3. I'm on the fence whether you should even index sites like Yelp.com?

[dannysullivan]

Third-party sites that republish public information are not exempt from this. IE: say a government site publishes personal info as public record. Our policy doesn't allow removal of the government pages. But if a third-party republishes, our policy does allow removal of those.

[celdon25]

So the takeaway I get here is that it's perfectly fine for someone to dox you as long as they leave phone number, email address, and physical address out of it. Got it.

[dannysullivan]

No. Again, we'll work to better clarify this page. But there are two things:

1) Remove personal info, which includes things like email address, phone number, physical address. You can ask those be remove; no proof of threat is required.

2) Remove doxxing content, where there's anything you might consider to be contact info that's not covered in the policy above and which is linked to a threat.

[no-dr-onboard]

I wonder what the standards are to verify this. Can I just sockpuppet a twitter account calling for my harassment and then use that as proof of targeting?

IMO there should be as few barriers to entry as possible with something like this.

[stult]

Cool new business model, harassment as a service. We‘ll get your info off google for the low low price of $1.99 per fake death threat

[reaperducer]

I hear ads on the radio for "reputation management" companies that, in part, use similar methods.

[vlunkr]

I'm implicitly threatened by a multi-billion dollar corporation making my personal information available publicly and refusing to remove it unless I have evidence of explicit or implicit threats.

[Teandw]

Technically they haven't made your personal information available publicly. It was already public if Google managed to get their hands on it. They've just made it easier to find.

[munk-a]

There isn't a material difference between those two things. What precisely is private information - outside of information stored solely inside your head. Even medical records can be made public through certain actions so pretty much everything is potentially public information.

Making things easier to find can be a threat - it's why there's a lot of compelling discussion around websites that take rosters of arrest records and post them on big scary websites along with pictures and lurid descriptions of the person's crime - offering to remove the information for a fee.

[Teandw]

Making things easier to find can be a threat, yes. I guess that's why they're moving towards allowing things like this to be removed.

[KennyBlanken]

Fascinating, isn't it, that linking to a movie or cracked software is something they have to stop linking to upon request no questions asked by law, but if your personal information or financial information or login credentials are posted somewhere, you gotta prove you'd be harassed...

The US needs a GDPR-equivalent law.

[reaperducer]

Google buys 90% of credit card transactions. That's not public information.

And the only way to opt out of it is to not use credit cards.

[DaltonCoffee]

Do they publicly index this information tho?

[reaperducer]

Does it matter?

Is it somehow OK for someone to build a dossier on another person as long as they use that information for their own purposes?

[Teandw]

Well, yes. Because you're talking about a different scenario than what is going on here.

[alar44]

Yes? Are you telling me I can't know things about people?

[lupire]

It is not free as in gratis, but it is publivally available, just as tomatoes are publicly available at stores.

[KennyBlanken]

> Google buys 90% of credit card transactions.

Source, please.

[lupire]

Bloomberg reported (paywall) and the web plagiarized:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Google%20buys%2090%25%20of%2...

The "90%" might not be easily sourced, but also not the crux.

[throwaway0220]

> "...unless I have evidence of explicit or implicit threats."

It seems you're misreading the policy. See my comment above [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31210455