‘Right to be forgotten’ used to force Google to remove medical negligence link | Hacker News Reader

‘Right to be forgotten’ used to force Google to remove medical negligence link

theverge.com

64 pointscarlio13 comments

Seems to me like a legitimate usecase. It involves the judgement by a panel of medical experts, in addition to a court judgement.

"The judge said that while the information on the website with reference to the failings of the doctor in 2014 was correct, the pejorative name of the blacklist site suggested she was unfit to treat people, and that was not supported by the disciplinary panel’s findings."

Still, if that site is unfairly pejorative, isn't that the site that should receive the takedown restriction? Google supposedly+ just reflects the nature of what others are saying.

+ yes I know there's a lot of wiggle in the "supposedly" but the principle seems clear.

Yeah, it seems like this ruling is wanting Google to become the police of the internet: burrying things the government doesn't like and only showing what they do like. I don't think that's a good thing.

The Guardian link has more details: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/21/dutch-sur...

Not much more details, unfortunately.

What exactly was the error, how long ago has it been done, has the problem been corrected, what did the blacklist say about this person, and did it match reality?

The judgement was probably reasonable, based on my experience with the courts. But there are not enough facts in these 2 articles for us to form a reasonable opinion.

You can find some more information (in Dutch) at the below address. In short, the Dr. made some errors in a patient's aftercare, which lead to the probation. The lawyer of the Dr. argued that anyone on the Internet is free to attack this person, but due to patient/doctor confidentiality, the Dr. isn't free to respond.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2267951-rechter-laat-google-zoekresul...

Let's take the worst accusation: child molestation. If one is found not guilty after his name was all over the media, his life is really ruined. Yes, he was accused, arrested and tried and these are facts, but they also ruin his life even 25 years later. We must balance the two.

Unfortunately, a lot of people think that if you’re arrested, you’re guilty; regardless of if you’re acquited or not

I'm not convinced: consider a second child victim of the same perpetrator, if someday (s)he reads a clearer distinction or argumentation of what constitutes what, and decides to google the perpetrator's name (in case he was already convicted for a similar count) (s)he would be able to verify that, and it may convince the victim to come forward if (s)he perceives the probability of suing to be higher (otherwise the victim just risks losing money, credibility, ... but most of all his/her faith in society)

In my case he arrested but wasn't convicted. The mere fact that he was arrested and shows up in Google for ever means his life is ruined. Even if guilty, for a lot of crimes there needs to be a redo thing; like bankruptcy that doesn't show after 7 years in credit report (mostly)

I don't believe in censorship, note that such things can amount to destruction of evidence...

Maybe I just have a bad understanding of this law, but why stop with the internet? If a citizen has the right to be forgotten, then what about old newspapers stored on microfilm in libraries? Why not let citizens force librarians into censoring these documents, like some classified document from the CIA?

Maybe it's only the right to be forgotten when it's perceived as "easy" to erase something or easy to access something? Seems contrived.

It's not really a right to be "forgotten". it's a right to not have a minor, old incident be the most prominently promoted info about you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com