[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:58:00AM +0100, Philip Hudson wrote: > 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. The problem is - and this is why I'm on balance not happy with the ruling - that what should be prioritised is rather subjective. Perhaps it is important that this person had been declared bankrupt once. If you want to hire him as a financial manager, this might be worth knowing. (I'm not saying I would find this information important to know, even in such a case.) But I agree with you (and thus disagree with Tom) that indexing and re-ordering information, even if it is information that is in the public domain, can invade someone's privacy. Martijn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq