Talk:Right to be forgotten

Research

Whole section sounds like a really contrived advertisement for this Oblivion software.

Google vs. Gonzalez

I think the name of the man that the recent legal decision was decided for should be in this article. he is his own streisand effect.108.94.3.58 (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

 Declined WalledGardenDefender (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Palazzi 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC) the mention of the argentinean references in this article are incorrect, it has nothing to do with the RTBF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloandrespalazzi (talk • contribs)

Seems OK to me. I checked this reference http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/eilr/27/27.1/Carter.pdf in the Bibliography and it seemed to me both on-topic and useful, the text remarks depending on it. RR 2014 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Tom Carstairs

Regarding the lead image, there is no evidence that the take down request was properly a "right to be forgotten" request. Costeja simply establishes that search engines are responsible for their links as data providers. The so-called "right to be forgotten" was in fact not established by the ruling and is just one of a number of grounds for requesting take downs.

It worries me that this is a so-called self-referential edit protecting Wikipedia's interests (as perceived by some and not necessarily excluding one of its founders). Needless to say I have no intention whatsoever of intervening, forewarned by others of the ruinous effect of intervening in such edits. However (hopefully), it cannot be harmful to point out the facts. RR 2014 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is POINT-y and cruel and unwise to use this photo in any encyclopedia article, and particularly this one. There is no reason to punish whoever the subject of this photo is (we have little evidence, and there is some argument that we are not even sure of the license status). I am removing it on BLP grounds pending further discussion here. Please let's not put it back here without a strong consensus to do so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's sensible (I mean removing it on BLP grounds), and I saw your remarks about it on your Talk page as well. It's an odd case and I think you're right to say it doesn't have much significance for the debate. RR 2014 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jimbo on this and I applaud him for taking the initiative to remove the image from the article. I honestly came expecting to see a huge fight/argument. I'm rather glad there isn't one. The image's copyright is also under dispute (on its own page.) JMP EAX (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Melvin v. Reid

In the section on the U. S. A. there's reference to the Melvin v. Reid case, with a link to a Wikipedia page of that name - but that page is a redirect back to this page. Was there, and should there be, a page for this case, and if not, shouldn't the link be removed? Wocky (talk) 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The redirect is what we call a {{Redirect with possibilities}} and could one day become an article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC).

Right to be forgotten and non-personal information

Google has removed hundreds of links of our website about corporate information. This information only relates to the business scope of company directors in the United Kingdom and Spain, and it's not considered personal information under the Data Protection Acts of the two countries. Fortune Magazine covered this story in October 2014 , and it was mentioned again in the Wall Street Journal blog as a risk for investors. This is an example of using the Right to be Forgotten to remove information that could be considered relevant, such as a recent director appointment in a company. Google continues to remove URLs from our site. Is this information relevant for the article?

EA 999 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is relevant. I've added the following in the criticism section: "Such removal can impact the accuracy and ability of businesses and individuals to carry out business intelligence, particularly due diligence to comply with antibribery, anticorruption, and know your customer laws.[ref] The right to be forgotten was invoked to remove from Google searches 120 reports about company directors published by a Spanish company which compiles such reports about private company directors, consisting entirely of information they are required by law to disclose;[ref][ref] Fortune magazine examined the 64 reports relating to UK directorships, finding that in 27 (42%) the director was the only person named, in the remaining only the director and co-directors were named, and 23 (36%) involve directorships started since 2012.[ref]" AHeneen (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for including that information. Regarding removed urls, there is an external link about removed URLs "hiddenfromgoogle.com". We tried at first to send our lists of removed URLs to that site but it's no longer updated. So we published our own lists and they are the basis for the Fortune article. Maybe they are relevant too: Removed links from UK directors and Removed directors from Spain The lists are updated daily, and they are going to include more countries soon. We have more than 10 million directors of 4 countries in our databases, and we have to deal with many data protection conflicts every day, including Right to be Forgotten requests and hundreds of requests for deletion. As an important part involved in the Right to be Forgotten conflict and due to the relevancy of our company shouldn't be named (or have a Wikipedia entry)? Please forgive my boldness, I'm new at Wikipedia. I've read all the guidelines and considering our media presence maybe we should have an entry, given that an editor agrees, of course. Best regards. Note: I've requested the creation of Dato Capital entry EA 999 (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

plagiarism, unreliable sources, possible copyright infringement

I've never tried to contribute, and I feel out of my depth here. Please advise.

First, I noticed various cosmetic flaws in the following text:

It is important to note, that currently, requests made by private persons under the EU ruling for information removal are just implemented by Google on European sub domains, such as Google.co.uk or Google.fr but not on Google.com. That’s not about to change, according to Eric Schmidt unless Google is compelled to escalate de-indexing to .com by the ECJ in the future.^[25]

I was about to correct the flaws, but then I noticed that it was almost identical to its cited source. I would have simply marked it with {{close paraphrasing}}, but the paraphrased source was unreliable, and was itself ripped from a copyrighted TechCrunch article. Even after two very thin layers of paraphrasing, the Wikipedia version seems to infringe on AOL's copyright, though the writer may not have been aware.

I imagine the steps to take are to:

1. rewrite the quoted text to have sufficiently original wording
2. cite the TechCrunch article
3. check the rest of the article for plagiarism, unreliable sources, etc.

For now, I just deleted the text to avoid copyright issues.

Thank you, anyone, for helping! --Josiahmcclellan07 (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)