In message <[log in to unmask]>, at 14:21:54
on Sun, 1 Jun 2014, Chris Pounder <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Google has received all kinds of plaudits for quickly introducing its
>?right to be forgotten? procedure; however from what I have read in the
>press, its procedure for the removal of URLs is not fit for purpose. In
>this blog, I explain why Google?s procedure appears to be so defective
Thanks for reminding everyone (in your blog) that Google already has a
process for removing urls from search results. And of course it also has
a system of filtering out various search terms:
Nov 2013: Google and Microsoft announced that 100,000 search
terms would now return no results that could find illegal
material.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25067051
It's no surprise to me at all that Google would roll out a notification
system very similar to that already used for DMCA-type issues.
The question is: why do most commentators predict they will give the
benefit of the doubt to complainants (as they are legally entitled to do
with DMCA) when I expect they will reject most, only referring a small
number to some adjudication process that there's still plenty of time to
set up.
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|