Is Google liable for unlawful web graffiti on its walls? Europe's highest court has been asked to make clear whether or not it is Google's responsibility to remove data from its search engine index and news aggregator if it hadn't produced that material itself. The request from Spanish court, the Audiencia Nacional (in Spanish), to the European Court of Justice came as a top judge …
But if someone else posted it, why do they think Google are responsible?
Let's try the infamous car analogy (yes I know they are all taken out of context but it is fun):
It's like saying Ford are responsible for you getting a parking/ speeding fine as their "service" provided the means to get said fine.
Only because there is no regulation.
Piss off enough decision makers and regulation will be seriously considered, and probably implemented.
The internet has only been "free" for as long as it has because the right people haven't been affected by it yet. "Welcome to the Official Internet - Webmasters, please fill in this form in triplicate, approximate waiting times for approval are 6 months". :)
From errant emails and the like I conclude that there are at least four individuals with my name and significant "footprints" on the internet. Larger than mine anyway. If one of them made this sort of request, would I be "un-personed", just in case?
More to the point if Sony were to demand that "All references to Michael Jackson not appearing on Sony sites" be removed, how would fans of beer or software be affected?
"Political slogan" - quite. This 'right to be forgotten' nonsense is just that - a typical piece of ill-thought-out Euro-pomposity designed to make it seem like the EU is looking after the little people. It is not. It is just creating yet another useless, taxpayer-funded bureaucracy that will have the usual exact opposite effect of what is claimed, in order to prey on the fears and foibles of ordinary folk and make them think the EU is wonderfully protecting them. Tell that to the Greeks.
Will the Euro High Court show the same commonsense interpretation of the law as this UK judge, or will it, as it was instructed by the Maastricht Treaty, 'return a judgement that furthers the cause of European Integration'? Perhaps someone should spray graffiti on the walls of the court and see who gets arrested - them or the judges?
or, adapt Upside-down-ternet - play with the graphics just to be annoying, then redirect all links to a page about freedom of speech, the definition of a common carrier (if state-controlled PTTs are protected, ISPs and hosting providers should get same protection)..
but "It's like saying Ford are responsible for you getting a parking/ speeding fine as their "service" provided the means to get said fine." needs an additional comparison. Saying non-publishers are responsible for published content is like saying UK libel laws have kept pace with technology (it's not as if the courts haven't have twenty years to adapt to the Internet or anything like that).
Saying Google is responsible for 3rd party posting is as unreasonable as saying politicians that don't understand what they are doing but allow bureaucrats to pursue unelected agendas anyway should be held accountable. Oh, hang on, that's a perfectly reasonable and democratic stance. I'm sure it will happen.
Sorry for any typos in that, was distracted as a pig flew past on it's way to meet the unicorn down the road, for their trip to Atlantis for the weekend of February 30th - 31st.
I know. To be in IT you need to have either certifications, or a lot of experience, or both, I believe lawmakers should not be able to propose, alter, or squash any law without themselves having proof that they at least know what they are talking about. Why would you let/want someone that has no experience with something complicated dictate policy about it.
The world is broken.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
