[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 18 May 2014 15:25:14 +0100, Philip Hudson <phil.hudson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >No, no, no. The test is objective and subject to legal challenge: >irrelevant and outdated personal information that disadvantages an >individual must not be the first or only result returned. Not just "I >don't like it" but "it's harmful misinformation for *both* the public >*and* the individual"... Obviously not irrelevant (especially if you were going to lend this guy money or extend him credit), not outdated (not really that long ago) and not misinformation (it's true). Apart from that you are bang on! Rather than waste what I guess is a ton of cash on lawyers (I don't suppose he is paying though) this guy should have set-up a website detailing his generous donations to charity or how he fosters sick cats or how he did some fantastic deeds and get his mates to link to it then this wouldn't be the only thing Google can find out about him. The fact that he hasn't taken that pretty obvious step indicates to me that he isn't a good guy so isn't really deserving of our sympathy. Let's just say that instead of going bankrupt (which must surely be commonplace in Spain these days) he had murdered someone. On coming out of jail he hears about Google and does a search on himself and is surprised to find just one hit detailing his crime. Would it be okay for him to get that taken down? As Spock would say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Kevin -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq