[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 18/05/14 15:43, Philip Hudson wrote: > On 18 May 2014 01:18, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Let's say Google apply a manual downgrade to this result. Let's say the >> person involved goes bankrupt again, because it turns out he is reckless >> with money and not just unlucky in the past, no one will tell Google, >> people dealing with him won't now find both results, only the later >> bankruptcy. > > How do you know this? Experience. > It's a pure leap in the dark on your part, based > on false suppositions about what is being said in the verdict. I would > have said that in this scenario the "irrelevant and outdated" test the > court applied to the earlier bankruptcy immediately ceases to apply, > the existing order is no longer enforceable and it becomes incumbent > on Google to deliver the full picture. But Google isn't yet intelligent, it can't possibly understand enough of the meaning of documents to recall (and reliably identify) that this is the same individual (people share names), and that the original request is now invalid in some way. It would have to be explicitly told that, and I would suggest people who asked for information to be removed are unlikely to own up to it needing to be reinstated. Say also the original complainant is slow in paying a debt back, the lender does a search, finds nothing of note. So he gives him the benefit of the doubt. And the next time, and the next time, and unless any of these lenders publish something saying this guy didn't pay (which risks the law on libel), he can go on doing it. > Now you might say it's > incumbent on Google to do that now (with the implied assertion that > that's what Google always does, almost by definition), to which I say > that that is precisely what the court has found Google is *not* doing > when it returns irrelevant, outdated links and nothing else. You seem to be under the misapprehension that relevance is implied in searching for a name, and also the misapprehension that these were the only results returned for the search in question. To establish that the result is not relevant I would need to read the linked documents, understand them, understand the Spanish law that is applied, read the date, and establish that the person involved had no similar subsequent behaviour. And this is assuming my interest was the financial soundness of the individual concerned, and not say how Spain handles foreclosure (when it might well be relevant), or how the EU established privacy law (when it may well be relevant again). Search engines are indexes, it isn't like a credit rating agency that certifies the information in some way reflects a given individuals circumstances, it is just saying "these are the documents that best match your search term". -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq