I keep hearing the argument that removing certain search results would "alter history "

[G+_George Kozi]

I keep hearing the argument that removing certain search results would "alter history". Below my (fluid) thoughts on that one.

 

Originally shared by George Kozi

 

Simple and possibly controversial passing thought. Should a phone book have all the phone numbers listed in it since the invention of the phone?

 

If not, then why do we expect a search result to reflect everything ever published on the Internet about our search term? Shouldn't the search result reflect only what is actual? If you want history, you go to an archive. Is the Internet an archive?

 

IMHO, the search results shouldn't be indexes to an archive, but only reflect as accurately as possible what is actually actual. 

[G+_Scott Brady]

George Kozi? You are referring to the passage of time as a criterion for rolling off of a search result. What if something significant to your search happened three days ago and it is not in the results? What about historic events that remain significant long after that time span? It depends on what those "certain search results" are, not how old they are.

[G+_George Kozi]

Scott Brady but you see, search results can't be a historical record. It is actually impossible. People who own them remove websites and pages and blogs from the internet all the time. Without those, there is no accurate historical record. 

 

So... again, is the internet supposed to be an archive?

[G+_Scott Brady]

Perhaps I misunderstood your purpose for the post. I'm referring to removing things under the "right to be forgotten." Seems as if you're referring to people arbitrarily removing things. Two different discussions in my opinion. No, the internet is not necessarily a historical archive-the answer to your question. No, I don't believe in removing content because you don't like what it says, even though it is accurate-the answer I thought you were looking for.

[G+_Dave Trautman]

If I just used a phone and was looking for numbers I would need a list. This comparison to indexing the internet is not going to work for you.

 

Indexing the internet is a constant process but Google's index is it's own pile of data gathered by their own spiders working relentlessly to find all of the available pages presented by people who put things on the internet. One needs to think about this quite differently than the list of phone numbers, names and addresses gathered for publishing a book.

 

If you go to your library they have all the phone books dating back to when they were first published in your area (at least mine does). So the numbers of "all history" are available.

 

But the problem with "being forgotten" in a search index is that the information must keep appearing and be deleted each time. That is to say the information someone put on the internet remains there for as long as the site continues to operate. For long periods following the closing of a site the links to it still remain but the links are eventually dead and the information is not longer available.

 

Asking Google to manage this is just being silly. The person who has a complaint about out-dated information about themselves (or an event which names them) has two important jobs. One is to locate the source of their problem and request the information be updated or removed by the site which is hosting it. Google is likely not hosting their information. Google is providing a link to the source. The second job they have is to educate anyone who relies of this incorrect information about them to not rely on it and show it is completely out-of-date.

 

Just as a person whose number was incorrectly published in the phone book has to educate everyone who is calling it, they also have to inform the phone book publishers about the correction so it does not repeat. Yes, you could blame the publisher for their mistake but it is not their responsibility to knock on every door and paste in the correction to every phone book.

 

If there is information about me on the internet I should hope the context in which it appears is either obvious to the person finding it or relates correctly to my past and my present situation. If I had some sort of event in my past for which I am being unfairly linked I would search for the source of this information and petition them to remove it or correct it or include more context for the affiliation with myself.

 

I have remarks which date as far back as Usenet discussions and I've had a few web pages which include my name and my photographs. If I ever wanted those links to disappear then I would ask them directly to remove my name and photos. The index of the internet would eventually update and those older versions of the site would fall in the rankings well down into the results. If anyone came to me with that information I would educate them about where the 'current' information is located and remind them that the history of the internet is getting longer every decade.

 

I am pretty sure the paper records of my schooling had long been disposed of as they have no value to anyone any more. I do not expect to see my marks on the internet. If I did find them, I would have a case to sue whomever has posted them, by the privacy laws of my country. I would certainly not blame Google for finding the post and cross referencing it with my current information. I would thank them for doing the hard work of locating the source and presenting me with the information I need to remove the information.

 

There may be a case to be made regarding how long indexed data can reasonably be kept. But that comes into conflict with people whose business is the historical research of the human race. They would argue this generation has no idea what the value of our data will be 50 years from today. Keeping it (but not displaying it) is useful to some person who is not yet born and who might discover important things from studying and analyzing the history of the internet.

 

This is a worthwhile debate because it presents a whole new definition of what a public self has changed into and where a private self is being eroded. McLuhan had a lot to say about this back in the 1960s and two of his books touched on it repeatedly.?

 

So, yes the internet is an archive.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

Dave Trautman  There is a disagreement between your view of who is 'responsible' for the data an the 'Right To Be Forgotten' ruling.

 

They see the information held by Google as the work of a data controller, and the web-site as media. Therefore, Google has to work under these laws, and as media, the web site has journalistic and freedom of speech rights.

 

Asking Google to manage links is silly, but it is not what is being asked, they are asking Google to manage the links it provides in certain cases e.g. where it applies to an individuals name. Google already manipulates data in terms of relevance, spam, Page Ranking etc, adding 'right to be forgotten' is not that much extra to ask.

 

Also, there are arguments for the importance of Google e.g. German publisher's loss of web traffic, or having to be on the first page of Google results. Then it is argued that removing links from the results page is stupid as the information is still on the web. You can't have it both ways.

 

As for going to the web site itself. If the ruling said an article had to removed when asked, everyone on here would laugh and say the EU has no idea about technology, you could just post it on another site.

 

Also, the Exam Results example is interesting. Here (UK) certain results are okay to be published (as quickly scanned on the ico site). As for suing, what happens if the site posting the data is not in your country?