[ Date Index ]
[ Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Re: [LUG] EU ruling on Google
- To: list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [LUG] EU ruling on Google
- From: Philip Hudson <phil.hudson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 10:58:00 +0100
- Delivered-to: dclug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dcglug.org.uk; s=1396810045; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Reply-To:Subject:To:Message-ID:Date:From:References:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version; bh=yM14rjZMUy8OteFzmppAwfAwV98mvR9c+8JcvJH0kC8=; b=Sg052ZBrflxVnFWsmP/fUrs8mVyRxJHqCwTAVctGyLSSbnmcdD2ogPsd6sOtq7GcS+pAARnKU5mUTYnGVaG/4lJOpVp9k2rnyfBVgl/sPBQlZeWLTdkPtEcGZ/oCreyeXuZve5jVq9kWvZVasxKm+uJpUKVG1PesOkwwOR/0zSk=;
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=i/yCxywfjMkBf2bhjfgUOejquB7Ni8cwmVdfwxiHdc4=; b=DULhZvu6fqGbmFKMvLB6TaftEL8pW6lbqMihQrf92rZT8N93R04BOOE3Gi9dx3gjtz VVgE8T7lzxEx/vz+7oXYLFK+0o2u7bdUNOBgx3jkp/as0QGvnde0K+H5GinnIPZs7hZs wWxAQqhgArwOrhfYkzGORqwJM++RSPud+fc2bwjxYNNGGchcyWi/m/RFxhZ9lGHvPoj3 yt4RR74lQWuenT2JmwpaZbv7OB3AZG4ovUWpXwIPLFtGNzkRRy91yueFHqXSDo+wNYb4 hdJsG23hLAyVqOceDXC0aSnubYfcGNpMOilbbfHZ6LmwGmNrmhlVbMlFLIL474Eo9zlR 7CgQ==
On 15 May 2014 10:49, Tom <madtom1999@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I dont think it invades peoples privacy in the sense the information is
> already in the public domain - the info will be in publicly available papers
> and in many cases an online search of the court records will show he was
> bankrupt. This information is not incorrect.
*Was* bankrupt. *Had been*. The point is that it was the first or only
information on the results page, which was misleading and damaging,
and crucially that Google failed to provide any way to correct it or
improve it. AFAIUI the complainant wasn't demanding removal, just
deprioritizing, and that seems to me not just fair but essential.
Google *should* have added some smarts to PageRank, but that's not in
their interest because it would slow down the algorithm overall in the
interest of accuracy for only a tiny minority of results.
--
Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz
@UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
