Archive

Reuters blog archive

from The Great Debate UK:

The ‘Right to be Forgotten’: Something to remember

--Steve Girdler is managing director for EMEA at HireRight, a global provider of candidate due diligence services. The opinions expressed are his own--

The EU’s court ruling in May granted people the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ from Google searches, and while the issue is tied up in controversy for the time being, what it does do is convey the message that people should have the opportunity to move on from their past.

This is further reinforced by the recent changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which mean that, depending on the length of the sentence and the nature of the crime committed, ex-offenders don’t have to inform their employer of their criminal past.

But do these new regulations provide benefits to employers and jobseekers, or make it more difficult for companies to fully assess candidates before employing them? Could it increase the risk that the businesses will employ someone who could potentially damage the company?

from Jack Shafer:

The truth is, you’ve never had the ‘right to be forgotten’

An illustration picture shows a Google logo with two one Euro coins

A recent ruling by Europe's top court has given its people a "right to be forgotten." Google and other search engines must now delete "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant, or excessive" information from search queries when a European individual requests it, even when the info is true. This isn't a classic case of censorship: the "offending" pages produced by newspapers and other websites will go untouched. Google and the other search engines just won't be allowed to link to them.

The court has largely left to the search engines how best to handle requests to decouple the names of petitioners from search results served, which has already produced major confusion, as well as a comically passive-aggressive response from Google, which has received more than 70,000 requests in the opening round, with 1,000 said to be arriving daily. (See this Washington Post editorial for a few examples of people who have succeeded in persuading Google to "delist" certain search results.)

from Alison Frankel:

Kozinski amends opinion in 9th Circuit ‘Innocence’ case v. Google

Something strange happened Friday in the infamous case of Cindy Lee Garcia v. Google at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who wrote the opinion in February that enjoined Google from linking to the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims," filed an amended opinion, even as the entire 9th Circuit considers Google's petition for en banc review of the controversial February ruling.

The amended opinion, in which Kozinski is joined by Judge Ronald Gould, left the injunction in place but walked back a step or two from the controversial holding that the actor Cindy Lee Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim that Google is infringing her copyrighted five-second performance in 'Innocence.' (Garcia, as you may recall, was deceived by the maker of the inflammatory film, who overdubbed her lines to make it appear as though her character was calling Mohammad a pedophile. The film led to riots in the Muslim world and death threats against Garcia.)

from Stories I’d like to see:

Google’s lost links, U.S. border crossing guards and when a Tea Party loss is a win

A Google search page is seen through a magnifying glass in this photo illustration taken in Brussels

1. Google’s dilemma:

Writing in the Guardian last week, Google general counsel David Drummond described the trouble the European unit of his company is having trying to implement a European Union court’s decision that the search giant must eliminate links to certain web articles or postings about people that these people claim are unduly embarrassing.

The European court’s “right to be forgotten decision,” Drummond wrote, “found that people have the right to ask for information to be removed from search results that include their names if it is ‘inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive.’ In deciding what to remove, search engines must also have regard to the public interest.

from Edward Hadas:

Google and the right to be forgotten

The public has a right to know. Individuals have a right to privacy. The common good is served by both these contradictory statements, so someone has to decide how to balance them when they come into conflict. When it comes to internet search, the European Union’s Court of Justice has given the job to search engine providers such as Google. In a way, that’s a good call.

The court decided in May that some internet links deserve to be “forgotten” because certain data can over time become “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant”. The search operators were held responsible, in the first instance, for judging whether to grant requests to remove links.

from Breakingviews:

Heed New York Times governance risk headlines

By Rob Cox
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

As investors surrender rights to founders of today’s internet darlings, they may want to consider the imbroglio at the New York Times Co. It’s an excellent lesson of what can happen when once-entrusted competent leaders are gone and their successors become entrenched.

from Breakingviews:

Rob Cox: ITT’s ghost hangs over Silicon Valley

By Rob Cox
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The number of entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley familiar with the work of Harold Geneen would hardly fill a 140-character tweet. After all, Geneen wasn’t a technologist, the inventor of a new computing language or the founder of a seminal startup. He was the original M&A machine – the man whose deal-making 50 years ago turned ITT into a multibillion-dollar conglomerate.

from Alison Frankel:

Lesson from the smartphone wars: Litigation is not a business plan

After almost five years of suing each other in courts in the United States and Europe over patents on mobile devices, Apple and Google abruptly announced Friday night that they've called a ceasefire: They're dropping all of the litigation. They're not even making a deal to cross-license one another's IP, just declaring a truce and walking away.

Apple has not yet settled with Samsung, the device manufacturer that most successfully employs Google's Android operating system, so the two companies haven't entirely resolved their dispute; evidence from the recently concluded patent infringement trial between Apple and Samsung in San Jose, Calif., revealed that Google is paying at least part of Samsung's defense costs. (The Korea Times reported Monday that Apple and Samsung are in global settlement talks.) Until there's a Samsung deal, two law professors, Brian Love of Santa Clara University and Michael Risch of Villanova told Bloomberg, the Google settlement is more important as a symbol than for any actual impact.

from Breakingviews:

Mini-me tech bubble is mere shadow of 2000 excess

By Robert Cyran
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

The latest mini-me internet bubble is a mere shadow of the excesses that came crashing to an end in 2000. Sure, even though the run-up may have paused, the feverish signs are unmistakable. Dozens of companies are in line to float, hubris is rampant, oddball valuation metrics abound, and revenue-free startups are still worth fortunes. Even nerd culture has somehow become hip. The latest boom is as absurd as the last, but it’s far smaller.

from The Great Debate:

Theodore Roosevelt on net neutrality

tr & crowd

“Above all else,” President Theodore Roosevelt admonished Congress in 1905, “we must strive to keep the highways of commerce open to all on equal terms.”

Roosevelt could not have imagined digital computers and fiber-optic cables. He was talking about railroads, the highways of commerce in his day.

  •