[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 06:57:01PM +0100, Philip Hudson wrote: > On 18 May 2014 18:25, <lug@xxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 money or extend him credit), not outdated (not really that long ago) and 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! > > Fair point as far as it goes, but presumably all of this was worked > out in court. But do you really think 'relevance' and 'outdatedness' can be defined by a court? Even if it could be, I'm not sure if I'd be happy with courts making such decisions: taking a search engine to court is expensive and complicated. And, for society as a whole, doesn't scale. So you'll likely get the situation where only those with deep pockets (large companies) and perhaps a few individuals will go to court. And the sensible thing from a business point of view would be for the search engines to avoid this by removing the information. Or not listing it in the first place. Chilling effect and all that. It's a complicated issue and I think both sides have strong arguments, but I think Google's case is the stronger. Martijn. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq