Eric Schmidt has called for measures to delete information from the internet

I worry that an initiative like this could potentially extend to laws where only large companies such as Google are allowed to store any public user data because only they can demonstrate reasonable compliance with deletion orders.

The complication here is non-obvious but real: Google has been pushing a hard link between online and offline personas to the point of absurdity sometimes. They are in a unique position to profit from a law that requires this kind of link. Compare that to, say, HN or even very small websites where no such policy exists and no such policy would even be realistically enforceable. How could HN verify the authenticity of a deletion order?

I don't think Google is as altruistic as Schmidt pretends here. They are in a great position to leverage their ToS in a way that would effectively outlaw smaller competitors. He is obviously not pushing a technological idea here, so it follows he must be lobbying for a legislative one.

It takes effort to parse Schmidt since everything he says has a self serving agenda. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as CEO [corrective edit: as Executive Chairman] part of his job is to promote the profitable interests of the corporation he heads.)

His stated agenda is to have real id mandated on the internet and eliminate anonymity. This benefits him which enables Google to make more money selling targeted ads where the target is known and identification is reliable, as well as reliably tracking people's private and personal interests and preferences, which is very valuable information which those in marketing, insurance claims, and security will all pay good money to have access to. It is an asset which can be sold and profited from, of interest to his business.

One problem that has been brought up with having mandated identification on the internet, the "internet drivers license" proposal, is that it can ruin kids lives since they may say a lot of dumb things.

So Schmidt heads this off with a proposal to have a global delete protocol, likely mandated by law that it be respected by various sites.

For delete to work though with a single button press, real id is necessity. No problem, everyone will have to have their net drivers license, all net accesses, views and posts tied into unique personal identifier such as social insurance numbers, so it is a simple matter to allow for a one-time delete of all records associated with a given globally unique personal identifier upon receiving a request from a central authority, or required daily checking of a central delete authority.

Of course the current solution, of using anonymous aliases, makes a delete button unnecessary. The delete button is only necessary in a world where anonymity is not permitted. It is useful to understand this is an unspoken premise of his proposal.

Firstly, The Register is a bit tabloid. So, factor that in.

Second, a brilliant reply from the comments on The Register:

"Can't see how it will work. Lets say somebody completely annihilates me in some sport or other when we both youths. Now I might want that expunged from the internet since I am embarrassed about it, but the person who beat me will want it kept because they are proud of their sporting achievement. Who gets to decide whether it is expunged or kept? A similar argument for criminal acts can also be made. As an example, I attempt to mug an OAP but another youth bravely thwarts my dastardly deed. Again, I want it expunged but the other youth wants it kept. The problem is, that most of what you do in life involves other people (I expect a few w*nkers will argue about this) and therefore if you are deleting an incident in your history you are also deleting it in theirs and they might not want it forgotten."!

Correct me if Im wrong, but IMHO, that pretty much defeats the whole idea, no? I might want to delete something, but others could still reference it, and me.

It reminds me of that old Onion article: "Google Announces Plan To Destroy All Information It Can't Index" http://www.theonion.com/articles/google-announces-plan-to-de...

This is a debate that I think is not only inevitable but needs to happen. I am completely in favour of free speech and the freedom of the Internet but I think stories like the one about the teacher from earlier on the homepage make you realise that there are situations where the Internet can cause harm. It is a difficult situation and I certainly don't know how to solve it, or even if it can be. What I do know is that it will be a very vocal debate and never end.

This isn't a particularly new idea, so I don't see any reason to link it to Glass or any specific (Google or otherwise) technology.

Eric Schmidt has been saying something like this for (at least) about 3 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-w...

Completely disagree. What the world needs to learn is that people do make mistakes, and a single mistake, or small series of mistakes, does not disqualify someone from having a productive life.

Very interesting development. I presume when he refers to "deleting" he means something more like allowing a user to remove references to him/herself from, say, Google, which is effectively the same as removing from "the internet" (nerd analogy - if you lose the MBR on your hard drive, you basically lose the data since there's no simple way to rebuild it. I know, not a perfect analogy, but still..)

Here's the question I have -- no answer just yet but curious what you folks think. If I had some bad press about me in the New York Times and I had the ability to have Google de-index the pages that talk about me, is that a Good or Bad thing? I imagine they wouldn't simply remove the entire pages, but they'd instead make it so searches for my name wouldn't show the bad stuff whereas other related searches would pull up those pages.

On the one hand, this is a plus for people and the ability to personally be in charge of your online image.

On the other hand, this is a minus for "open information" -- maybe Jack's drunken arrest on disorderly conduct charges doesn't need to show up, but Bill's indictment for securities fraud better serves the public interest, particularly if he's a con artist and runs the same scam again and again...

Thoughts?

But presumably keep it in Google's database, so they can keep harvesting it and running statistical models against you

This is probably as hard as removing a drop of ink from a glass of water - not entirely impossible but quite hard. Furthermore you have do find a mechanism that enables you to prove that the information you want to delete refers to you and that it therefore is you right to do so. Failing on this may easily turn the thing into means of censorship.

On the other hand it is probably sufficient to remove the easily discoverable instances of that information because not many people will try really hard to come up with something. And the ones that do will probably also do so outside of the internet.

"The lack of a delete button on the internet is a significant issue."

Shareholders should call for someone with such a profound disconnect from how the Internet works to step down from a technology company.

Most of this is already covered by privacy laws in many countries. One of the foundations of most privacy laws is that you own the data collected about you, and those that collect that data must adhere to certain rules regarding insight, alteration, deletion and security.

Countries btw in which Google operates and has a tendency to ignore said laws. This is like someone driving 100mph on a 50mph road abroad, but calling for measures against speeding in their own neighborhood.

"One does not simply delete information from the Internet."

If there are some people who are considered "un-hire-able" by most existing companies due to what the internet says about them, why doesn't a new startup just break the taboo and hire them?

If too few startups want to take on the risk, why don't the un-hire-able create their own businesses and work for each other?

Why don't we give capitalism a chance to solve the problem before we jump into regulatory solutions?

As NewsRadio taught us so many years ago, deleting something from the internet is like trying to remove pee from a swimming pool.

sorry, i had to post this.

The cynic in me sees a time when it will just cost money to get something deleted from the internet. Of course, those with the money win.

Don't like that your teenage misdemeanor is on the record? That's just a $5mil delete away, Mr CEO.

Maybe we should try something a little more prosiac, such as, I don't know - forgiveness maybe?

That probably sounds like some hippy-looking (or overly-meditative) founder of a major religion, so nevermind.

Plan B - find the dirt that Mr. Schmidt is obviously wishing would disappear.

This is solving the wrong problem. The problem is not the infinite preservation of history, but the overreaction of the employers and organizations.

The need is for society to evolve and accept the people the way they are and not enabling people to keep a mask in public.

Sounds bordering on totalitarian censorship.

Something similar to how we use fire on books? Like how we seal or expunge criminal records sometimes, except every individual is obligated to comply?

The protocol could be extended to deleting particular opinions from the internet, which could help with terrorism (or talking about terrorism or whatever), or even tracking and taxing particular opinions, as Cass Sunstein theorized might be a good way to bring down the pervasiveness of conspiracy theories.

The possibilities are endless.

From the mangled words of Eric Schmidt: "Maybe if you didn't do those things, you wouldn't need things deleted from the internet"