Home / Forums / Anonymous vs Scientology / News and Current Events /
Google Starts Removing Search Results After EU Ruling
Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Incredulicide, Jun 27, 2014.
Incredulicide Member
"Google has begun removing some search results to comply with a European Union ruling upholding citizens' right to have objectionable personal information about them hidden in search engines. "Google engineers overnight updated the company's technical infrastructure to begin implementing the removals, and Thursday began sending the first emails to individuals informing them that links they had requested were being taken down. The company has hired a dedicated 'removals team' to evaluate each request, though only a small number of the initial wave of takedown requests has so far been processed."
What's the bet Kristi Wachter's database site of names will stop showing up in google results when we're checking to see if someone in the news behaving in some supportive manner to the CoS is a scientologist?
Incredulicide, Jun 27, 2014
DeathHamster Member
Incredulicide said: ↑
That would give me a happy! Anyone with a copy of the db could run a scan to see which names are missing from Google results and those are the people to keep an eye on.
DeathHamster, Jun 27, 2014
DeathHamster said: ↑
Assuming they don't just order every member to make a request (or make it on behalf of them).
The Wrong Guy Member
Google reverses decision to delete British newspaper links | Reuters
Google Inc on Thursday reversed its decision to remove several links to stories in Britain's Guardian newspaper, underscoring the difficulty the search engine is having implementing Europe's "right to be forgotten" ruling.
The Guardian protested the removal of its stories describing how a soccer referee lied about reversing a penalty decision. It was unclear who asked Google to remove the stories.
Separately, Google has not restored links to a BBC article that described how former Merrill Lynch Chief Executive Officer E. Stanley O'Neal was ousted after the investment bank racked up billions of dollars in losses.
The incidents underscore the uncertainty around how Google intends to adhere to a May European court ruling that gave its citizens the "right to be forgotten:" to request the scrubbing of links to articles that pop up under a name search.
Privacy advocates say the backlash around press censorship highlight the potential dangers of the ruling and its unwieldiness in practice. That in turn may benefit Google by stirring debate about the soundness of the ruling, which the Internet search leader criticized the ruling from the outset.
Google, which has received more than 70,000 requests, began acting upon them in past days. And it notified the BBC and the Guardian, which in turn publicized the moves.
Continued at www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/03/us-google-searches-idUSKBN0F82L920140703
The Wrong Guy, Jul 3, 2014
JohnnyRUClear Member
Monopolies are bad, m'kay?
JohnnyRUClear, Jul 3, 2014
The Internet Member
There are other search engines. But they might be expected to remove stuff also.
The Internet, Jul 4, 2014
CommunicatorIC Member
Scientology using European Court of Justice ruling on 'right to be forgotten' to remove Google links to critical articles.
Google translation from German to English:
Spiegel Online: Right to be forgotten: Google removed SPIEGEL article from search results
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netz...nt-spiegel-artikel-aus-treffern-a-979255.html
This text should not be found: for the first time Google has removed an article by Spiegel from his hit lists. Background is the mention of a person in connection with Scientology.
Google has begun with the removal of hits in search results. This affects also the MIRROR. 're Looking for a specific name, appears an article in the news magazine about the Scientology organization is no longer in the results. Google has its users at page bottom itself out: ". Some results have been removed under the provisions of European data protection law"
With a search for Scientology without the name in question, the somewhat older SPIEGEL article in google.de and google.com will still find.
Google is following a ruling by the European Court of Justice in May The judges decided that search engines links to Web pages with sensitive personal data under some circumstances from their result lists must emphasize . Google had then a form posted online , may cause the removal of such items to the victims. Meanwhile, more than 70,000 applications have been received according to Google Europe, which will affect some 267,000 individual pages. 12,000 of applications came from Germany.
Deletion on request
Website operators who have signed up for Google get by the group a message via corresponding deletions. In this way, SPIEGEL ONLINE has learned from the removal of the Scientology article from certain search results. The exact reason for the removal is not mentioned.
In this case, the reason was to find out quickly: Google search for the title of the article in combination with the name of the article led to the result. Apparently, one of the persons mentioned in the text as Scientology supporters has turned to a clear request to Google.
The Group has implemented these as desired: A Google search of the person is silent now that the blogs had called him in connection with Scientology shops. While search engines have forgotten after the new ruling, the archives of media are excluded. Editors must not subsequently purge their archives, just because someone annoys years later reporting.
British media warn against censorship
The "Guardian" had been also informed by Google that six articles no longer show up in certain search results. The newspaper had the cases and the names of the alleged applicant made ??public . In one case - a judge was obviously lying in connection with a decision - Google has announced the cancellation after protests of the newspaper reversed.
The BBC and the "Daily Mail" had joined the protests. In your opinion, the Group has not been thoroughly tested - and matches away from the results, which were neither false, irrelevant or outdated, as it makes the judgment to the condition. Can also, according to the judgment of people with a meaning in public life not rely on the "right to be forgotten".
CommunicatorIC, Jul 4, 2014
OmniFeed: The German magazine "Der Spiegel" had an article about scientology removed from Google
http://omnifeed.com/article/www.spi...nt-spiegel-artikel-aus-treffern-a-979255.html
Ann O'Nymous Member
I guess individuals have a right to be forgotten, but removing their names from the articles should be enough.
I find it difficult to understand why Google, who always says that it is not responsible for the content they refer to, feels now the need to feel responsible for it.
If news organizations were to remove the names on request, Google would have nothing to do.
Ann O'Nymous, Jul 5, 2014
germananon
Ann O'Nymous said: ↑
I guess individuals have a right to be forgotten, but removing their names from the articles should be enough..
in germany:
if the newpaper is lieing about you or your company/ngo they(the newspaper) can get froce to writte a "sorry" story about this.
germananon, Jul 5, 2014
vaLLarrr Member
If the clams are trying to delete things from our internets, chances are they're juicy thing that we haven't yet noticed.
Like a hawk, they must be watched.
vaLLarrr, Jul 5, 2014
Twinkle Member
vaLLarrr said: ↑
Maybe Davey will be stupid enough to issue and order saying Scientology must be removed from the internet.
Twinkle, Jul 5, 2014
KittyKatSpanker Member
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?28134-20-s-thru-40-s-articles-on-Hubbard-at-Lermanet-com
KittyKatSpanker, Jul 5, 2014
Wasn't there a previous thread for some "heath food and vitamins" guy in Germany who wanted his Scientology links removed from Google?
It sure didn't take them very long. They're rather predictable that way.
DeathHamster, Jul 5, 2014
Reddit has a discussion thread on this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/29uap3/the_german_magazine_der_spiegel_had_an_article/
Ogsonofgroo Member
Hm, do I detect an air of 'Striesand Effect'? Is this people trying to hide past affiliations with cult, or cult trying to hide negative press? I r confused, off to read a bit more...
Edit~ Okay, def cult trying to hide/bury history, hmmmm, bwahahahaha! Or maybe not. From the Reddit discussioin it sounds like an individual request?
Aw poop, needing some more popping-corn... *digs in toolbox for an attention-spanner*
Ogsonofgroo, Jul 5, 2014
And this is why farming out the local searchbox on a site to Google has hidden gotchas. Google needs to clarify if those searches are affected by this, and if this can Unperson a page on the site itself. (Maybe change the "Powered by Google" logo to "Castrated by Google"?)
Not forgetting Penetrated by Facebook!
^^^ Lolol, man I miss the 'funny' button
This is that one, I think:
https://whyweprotest.net/community/...le-must-act-on-defamatory-suggestions.110992/
dispart Member
Right to Forget: Google Removes SPIEGEL Article from Search Results
By Ole Reißmann
This text is not supposed to be found: For the first time Google has removed an article by the SPIEGEL from its search result lists. The reason is a person being mentioned in connection with Scientology.
Google has begun with the removal of hits in the search result lists. Among others SPIEGEL is also affected by this. If you look for a certain name, an article by the news magazine concerning the Scientology Organization isn't mentioned among the search results anymore. Google itself points this out to its users at the bottom of the page: "Some results may have been removed because of regulations of european data protection law."
If one searches for Scientology without the name in question, the slightly dated SPIEGEL article can still be found at google.de or google.com.
Google is acting in accordance with a judgement by the European Court in May. The judges had decided that search engines may have to delete links to websites containing sensitive personal data from its search result lists under certain conditions. Pursuant to that, Google had provided a form, so that affected people could effect the removal of such entris. By now, Google has received more than 70,000 requests in Europe, concerning more than 267,000 individual pages. 12,000 of these requests originate from Germany.
Deletion upon Request
Website owners who have registered with Google receive a note by the corporation concerning these deletions. This way SPIEGEL ONLINE found out about the removal of the article on scientology from certain result lists.
In this case the reason could quickly be determined: Searches on google for the article's heading combined with the name from the article led to the result. Apparently one of the people mentioned as a scientology supporter has sent a request for deletion to Google.
The corporation fulfilled this as requested: A google search for the person now conceals that the SPIEGEL had mentioned him in connection with Scientology business. While search engines have to forget after the new judgement, media archives are exempted from this. Editors don't have to purge their archives simply because someone becomes upset with reporting years after the fact.
The "Guardian" was also told by Google that six articles won't appear in certain search result lists. The newspaper had made public the cases and the names of the supposed applicants. In one of the cases - a referee had apparently lied concerning a decision - Google reversed the decision after protests by the newspaper.
The BBC and the "Daily Mail" had joined in on the protests. In their opinion, the corporation hadn't checked thoroughly enough - and removed hits from their result lists that were neither wrong, irrelevant or dated as required by the court decision. Similarly, persons of public interest may not invoke the "right to forget".
original article (including links within):
dispart, Jul 7, 2014
Does anyone have the link to the original Spiegel article with the actual mention of HeWhoMustBeForgotten?
I suppose I can see why Spiegel doesn't link to it in the current article, but there's no court order against it, and so long as the name isn't used, it won't invoke Google's filter.
I suppose I could grab all of Spiegel's German articles on Scientology, and figure out which one it is.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9183695.html
If you google the title of the article together with "Fred Anton" it doesn't show up in google's search results.
The article in question is from 1995 and details a Scientology scheme in the Hamburg housing market in the 1990s, even though it was said to have begun in the early 1980s. According to the article, it went as follows: People who couldn't be recognized as being connected to CoS bought
block flat houses with tenants, then the flats for rent were changed into owner-occupied flats. Then, often after the tenants were driven out,
scientological brokers were negotiating the sale of these flats. As empty flats can be sold at a much higher price than occupied flats it's easy to make money that way.
Another method described by the article, doesn't require non-scientologist involvement: Buying a house with little equity, the main amount is to be paid at a later, fixed date. During this time they try to sell as many flats as possible. From the proceeds the original purchase amount is being paid. The financial risk of this operation is thereby put on the people buying the flats who may already have incurred costs such as broker or notary fees, or costs for moving without ever becoming owners of the flats.
The article quotes a person from a tenant's association which said that every other older building that was being sold in Hamburg at the time, was being sold by scientologists. The association had observed for years that tenants in such buildings had been scared via constant phone calls and unrequested visits. The article states that cult representatives were urging them to buy or move out. People who didn't want to buy or were unable to, were being talked into clearing their flat in exchange for a cash payment between 10000 and 50000 deutschmarks. Once the flat was empty its value was rising by up to 40 percent.
This method had led to cheap living space, in particular used by people of little means, being systematically destroyed in the city.
These business dealings were characterized by the article as one of the main sources of revenue for "the scientologists in Germany" (which probably means CoS). High ranking former members are quoted with saying that at the time, about one third of the yearly income of CoS, which was estimated to be in the billions, was brought in by members in Germany and Switzerland.
The main person mentioned in the article was Götz Brase as a broker, connected to the companies Reddy-Immobilien, GGB and CKS, who
according to the article didn't use money for himself, but for Scientology as an OT7 and so-called "patron". Two business people from Hamburg
are mentioned as well ( Robert Boehm and Fred Anton who is described as a former fellow student of Brase's at university ), in connection with the companies MetaReal, MegaReal, TransWert and EcoGrund. They, according to the article, were involved in buying and transforming the block flat houses. Both of them strongly insisted not to be connected with Scientology.
The article also apparently described that money for this operation was beginning to run dry and that there was an increased resistance by an unlikely alliance of tenant, broker and owner associations as well as by banks unwilling to hand out loans to some institutions or people involved.
As an aside, during this time, according to the article an delegation consisting of Kurt Weiland (OSA) and Marc Yager (WISE) came
to Hamburg and removed the head of the Org, Ms Hansen, from post. Supposedly due to allegations of having falsified statistics concerning income and membership numbers, because she was afraid of having to report a downward trend.
Interestingly you get the same remark by google even with people and articles where nothing seems to have been deleted.
http://hiddenfromgoogle.com/ is publishing all the known search terms removed:
A list of search results omitted, erased, or censored due to the "Right to be forgotten"
Censored Search Term(s) Censored LinkSource
Fred Anton Scientology spiegel.de Source
Incredulicide, Jul 15, 2014
This is somewhat related:
Seattle utility wants $17,500 refund after failure to scrub negative search results | Ars Technica
Lesson: paying someone thousands to scrub your online reputation will *hurt* your online reputation.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ter-failure-to-scrub-negative-search-results/
The Wrong Guy, Jul 15, 2014
Wikipedia link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law | The Guardian
Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia
Google is set to restrict search terms to a link to a Wikipedia article, in the first request under Europe's controversial new "right to be forgotten" legislation to affect the 110m-page encyclopaedia.
The identity of the individual requesting a change to Google's search results has not been disclosed and may never be known, but it is understood the request will be put into effect within days. Google and other search engines can only remove the link – as with other "right to be forgotten" requests, the web page itself will remain on Wikipedia.
In May, the European Court of Justice ruled that citizens could ask search engines to remove particular links from results for a search made under their name, if the material was deemed to be out of date, no longer relevant or excessive.
Google has already begun to implement the ruling, with tens of thousands of links removed from its European search results to sites ranging from the BBC to the Daily Express. Among the data now "hidden" from Google is an article about the 2009 Muslim conversion of Adam Osborne, brother of the chancellor, George Osborne.
Jimmy Wales, who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 and has overseen its transformation into the sixth most visited site on the internet, told the Observer: "It's completely insane and it needs to be fixed."
Wales is one of 10 members of an advisory council formed by Google to decide how to handle takedown requests. The council will travel Europe, with a first hearing scheduled in Madrid on 9 September, before writing guidance for Google and other search engines, such as Microsoft's Bing, on implementing the new law.
Continued at http://www.theguardian.com/technolo...page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten
The Wrong Guy, Aug 2, 2014
tinfoilhatter Member
This sounds like a bad idea.
Like, an idea that can not be implemented that well, and one that when it becomes implemented, will have some nasty unforeseen effects on everything as a whole.
tinfoilhatter, Aug 2, 2014
dispart said: ↑
Scientology brings everyone closer together.
JohnnyRUClear, Aug 3, 2014
jensting Member
As predictable as the temptation for teh criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientolgy is, they're way ahead of it as we may have or may not have heard in connection with a super injunction and the UK and a book by an ex-victim...
Also, France has privacy laws which trump the right of the public to know the contents of court sentence documents. Yes really. (This requires the full names in court documents to be redacted to initials, pretty handy for those who have something to hide.)
jensting, Aug 5, 2014
https://duckduckgo.com/
KittyKatSpanker, Aug 5, 2014
KittyKatSpanker said: ↑
I'm suspicious of their search results because they don't appear to have a searchbot.
DeathHamster, Aug 5, 2014
https://translate.google.ca/transla...el.de/spiegel/print/d-9183695.html&edit-text=
I just hit a connection with that story.
The Missing in Happy Valley video concerns a missing Wiebke H. and I don't think the last name is ever given. This story talks about a Wiebke Hanson, who is almost certainly the same person.
Are they trying to bury all the articles after burying the person?
https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-9183695.html&edit-text=
Nice catch! Although the spelling is Wiebke Hansen in the article.
Completions: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/w/wiebke-hansen.html
OT VIII completion with a misspelling http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/w/wiebeke-hansen.html
Incredulicide, Aug 5, 2014
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-to-be-forgotten-ruling/?tid=trending_strip_6
Pianist asks The Washington Post to remove a concert review under the E.U.'s 'right to be forgotten' ruling
The pianist Dejan Lazic, like many artists and performers, is occasionally the subject of bad reviews. Also like other artists, he reads those reviews. And disagrees with them. And gripes over them, sometimes.
But because Lazic lives in Europe, where in May the European Union ruled that individuals have a "right to be forgotten" online, he decided to take the griping one step further: On Oct. 30, he sent The Washington Post a request to remove a 2010 review by Post classical music critic Anne Midgette that – he claims — has marred the first page of his Google results for years.
tl;dr: It's not even a bad review and he sent it to the wrong people.
DeathHamster, Oct 31, 2014
While this is comedy gold (I bet he doesn't understand that Google shows different results to different people - I barely get his own website on my first page of Google search results, by now), it doesn't alter the fact that a serious discussion shoud be had about online privacy and that this court ruling may or may not have been it.
jensting, Nov 6, 2014
We still remember.
DeathHamster, Nov 26, 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/1d765aa8-600b-4f32-b110-d02fbf7fd379
Following the ruling, Google removed a large number of links from its search results, including some to BBC web pages, and continues to delist pages from BBC Online.
The BBC has decided to make clear to licence fee payers which pages have been removed from Google's search results by publishing this list of links. Each month, we'll republish this list with new removals added at the top.
We are doing this primarily as a contribution to public policy. We think it is important that those with an interest in the "right to be forgotten" can ascertain which articles have been affected by the ruling. We hope it will contribute to the debate about this issue. We also think the integrity of the BBC's online archive is important and, although the pages concerned remain published on BBC Online, removal from Google searches makes parts of that archive harder to find.
The pages affected by delinking may disappear from Google searches, but they do still exist on BBC Online.
As our own dear (missing in action) Anne would say, 'Interesting'.
Ogsonofgroo, Jun 28, 2015
Hugh Bris Member
This is what came to mind when I heard about this:
In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.[5]
Hugh Bris, Jun 28, 2015
GibbousWaxing Member
Does the EU allow proxy removal requests on behalf of the dead? Kinda like Mormon baptism? Because they're in no position to make the request themselves, but they obviously would if they were able to?
Cuz then we could pretty much wipe out all of history just for the lulz.
Not that I'd want to do that; I think Santayana got it right.
(No, not "Oye Como Va"!)
GibbousWaxing, Jun 28, 2015