|
|
|
|
|
by ars
4401 days ago
|
|
People aren't complaining about the idea of removing private information. They are complaining that you are just removing it from google. The info is still there! And not only that, it's only removed from google.co.{eu*} google.com will still have it. Which makes it as stupid of a law as the one about cookies: Make it look like you are helping privacy while actually doing nothing of any value. Anyone from the EU who wants the full scoop about someone will just use the US google site, making this a completely pointless exercise. |
|
Which, as far as I can tell, is the point of the ruling.
The idea is to not have one particular thing that the world found interesting or newsworthy at some point in the past cast a shadow over an individual's life, so to speak. Yes, if you're really interested in someone's dirt, all the info is still there for you to dig up. Again, that's the idea.
Your point about google.com being unfiltered is, if true, somewhat valid. But the inability to enforce a good thing globally does not excuse not making an effort locally.
By the way, most countries in the EU do not use a `.co` domain for commercial entities.