[ 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: Martijn Grooten <martijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:27:24 +0000
- Content-disposition: inline
- 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:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:To:From:Date; bh=f4AwGIh9WRW2+Rhkgw3ZySlYmBHb/ITDA/GI9f6g8Zg=; b=hZpkEbZhQjFrXn4zmleMwc8RIdFqJn/rKhgDWTif88nFc5uNF5C80ZIM6jJ/w+v4ZCPlJJBuglZngUeCf4vuh22yEJeQjQQMOHbX4XacNqTZtLZdATlzzMEM25vJ5JJ2wtKhiwapKm9TcbVrqRBGIMr7z2H4FiDmKLNlzkPcQvE=;
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lapsedordinary.net; s=mail; t=1400153244; bh=Lnr8x6yvVE0+74jVROH8E86A/1LrcNS927oeP+0t1ms=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=GjUp++4YDJBprCYR2FBmFf+b8HiW3w6nu4PHXeuH+6Mq4ILiII+yABl6sBIdUxL9/ GMEWb1YGkiTaq81cfib1A2hKlQpkDmB5DMOweV5atAvSiqtQLch6L93OLiVUYUXDnS tR5nQsQVVsfQRGg0AJinceyiaD75mATgjunVS/Ac=
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:29:53AM +0100, Eion MacDonald wrote:
> I would note that many court injunctions and Non-Disclosure Agreements
> and contracts contain a clause that states that even the existence of
> that injunction or confidentiality agreement or contract may not be
> disclosed, and in the case of court orders (made in public court) the
> search engines at present do not show their existence.
This is true, but it's slightly irrelevant here: if something is so
secret that the fact that an NDA has been signed is to be kept secret,
then removing it from search engines won't make a huge difference.
Martijn.
--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
