|
|
|
|
|
|
by Fuxy
4398 days ago
|
|
|
As a European myself the request of the citizen for the removal of the content was legitimate you can't have past problems looming over you your entire life and certain things are just too personal and shouldn't be so easy to find to begin with. I don't want a potential google search to reveal I got my home repossessed for instance. The employer could take advantage of this by offering you a lower wage since you're desperate it's more likely you will take it or not hire you at all. However the way the court choose to handle this was completely wrong. This shouldn't be handled at search engine level but at the publishing website level. The ability of anybody requesting content to be removed from the internet should be very limited in the types of things they can have removed and rigorously monitored by a court of law. Plus there should be a private database containing the Names of the people who had content removed and what was removed. That would discourage political reasons since the log of their activity exists even if the content doesn't. |
|
|
If someone claims to be an expert in a certain area which you need but are not yourself an expert in, it would be very useful to be able to search their name and discover that things they wrote about the topic have been discredited. It'd be even more useful if you could find unflattering opinions about them written by their peers: perhaps it avoids a very long and messy employment of someone who will then be difficult to fire, but who doesn't know what they're doing, potentially crippling your business.
The guy you're looking at would probably love to make the criticism of his work unfindable whilst simultaneously leaving behind the bits that make him look good. But why should he have that right? Employers have needs too.
For what it's worth I quite agree that the existing framework for getting things removed from the internet (by going to the source) works well enough, but that's not what the court has now created.