I know many "older" people dont like that there is one place where everyone can find images of themselves. Some just want to be non online, if you can say it so, I do respect that. Also the way google show there images now a days, has nothing to do with a search engine anymore. A search engine can show thumbs and if a user want to see the real image they go to the site, like a search engine.
That link is subscriber only - maybe try this one?
|No person or company is above the law, imho. |
It isn't that simple. What if a U.S. court demands that Google remove all listings to Wikileaks, or all links to revelations about NSA spying? What if a Chinese court demands that Google remove links to blogs published by Chinese dissidents? Not all countries respect freedom of the press or freedom of speech (France being a good case in point: In France, you can be tried and fined for insulting an official of the state if you're rude to a traffic warden).
You know what this is related to right?
It's about images of an orgy involving Max Mosley. There is still such a thing as human decency and discretion that shouldn't have to warrant a law to guide it. Not everything that people do during their own times of intimacy needs to be public knowledge.
So based on the free speech trumpet you're blowing here how is it different from Eric Schmidt's extra-curricular activities that got purged from google's databases when he demanded his mistress take down her blog [gawker.com...] ?
i think i agree with mosley. okay, so its quite amusing for us to see the photos, but there is no real public interest in it. he's not a politician. he didnt do anything illegal. do the photos have to follow him around for the rest of his life?
[edited by: engine at 10:56 am (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
Moxley shouldn't do what he did if he didn't like photos to be online.
[edited by: engine at 10:56 am (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
>>Moxley shouldn't do what he did if he didn't like photos to be online.
interesting point, although in many countries it would be illegal to publish photos of a person without their consent. especially photos not taken in a public place. should we just disregard a country's laws that we don't agree with? indeed should we just disregard laws in our own country that we don't agree with?
[edited by: engine at 10:58 am (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
There are two different things. One is what's on the internet. The other is what the search engine displays. Is it the search engine's job to only provide results that everyone likes?
If you search for kiddie #*$!, then darn right the search engine should tell you what it finds. How else would you know where the sites are, in order to shut them down?
:: noting with interest the word censor's assessment of which words are or are not acceptable in civil discourse ::
Edit: At this point I feel morally obliged to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with 343's expressed opinion, but am prepared to defend-- though not necessarily to the death, because let's be reasonable-- his right to say it.
[edited by: engine at 10:59 am (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
Anyway, I am glad the court didn't make a distinction between "Google" and "Some site on the web". Given Google's new propensity for wanting to be all knowledge I think they need to be held accountable to the same standards as everyone else. No more free passes simply because they are a search engine. Google publishes urls, what's on them reflects on Google. You can't have all the knowledge without taking some of the responsibility, imo. Somehow we've allowed the search engine to become more important than the content and that's not right.
[edited by: engine at 11:08 am (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
mosley IMHO has no right to request/demand any SE to remove any data full stop (period).
freedom of speech is more important than ever in this day and age
all of the recent GCHQ/NSA revelations should have everyone on the same "page"
[edited by: engine at 11:09 am (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
It's going to be an interesting debate to say the least.
These types of topics wear me down so I'm going to call it an early night tonight but looking forward to jumping back into it tomorrow with my rubbers on (rubber boots!).
I want to shift my focus from how these types of issues affect individuals versus large percentages of populations.
I totally agree that we need freedom of speech when it comes to issues that affect the greater whole of our societies but we really do need to maintain rights for things that affect individuals themselves.
The problem with this is that it requires Google not just to remove specified images or pages, but to build a filter to spot reposted versions.
Is this even possible without also removing other pages on the same topic?
Many of us have committed 'indiscretions' at some time or another. Should these pursue us for the rest of our lives? Should we not have a right to have them removed from search engines after a certain time? Recruitment agencies and HR divisions routinely search online for details of prospective employees. If they are looking for someone for a senior position, how would they feel about discovering comments?
[edited by: goodroi at 1:59 pm (utc) on Nov 7, 2013]
[edit reason] Let's keep the discussion focused & productive :) [/edit]
As a practical matter, the cat is already out of the bag, and a French court's requirement that Google remove embarrassing photos of Max Mosley's S&M antics from French search results isn't going to make those photos inaccessible--not even in France.
Mr. Mosley's victory is Pyrrhic at best: The more he complains about being spanked by Google, the more attention he brings upon himself and his ladies in leather.
Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. Mosley.