dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
18

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy to Blackbird

Premium Member

to Blackbird

Re: EU Ruling on Google and User Privacy

said by Blackbird:

For openers, how would a "simple search engine opt-out feature" actually work to assure that the purported target of a search is, in fact, the actual entity demanding the search results for him/her be blocked

That wouldn't require a need to reinvent the wheel.
Opt-out features are already in place that although not perfect provide a model. Spokeo comes to mind first »www.spokeo.com/blog/2011 ··· em-works

Also I couldn't believe for a moment that an effective algorithm is beyond the expertise of the search engines.
If they can index it - they can manage it.
said by Blackbird:

- without creating a labyrinth of authentication requirements that themselves might violate more "privacy" than the original search topic they desire to be blocked?

The opt out process could be designed to be invasive, especially if intended to discourage use.
On the other hand it could consist of only data already known to the search engine.
said by Blackbird:

Who would administer the "registry", set the rules for authentication, enforce them, umpire protests regarding disagreements, and secure the registry from tampering?

*IF* enough teeth are built into the regulation the search engines would be wise to effectively self regulate.
said by Blackbird:

And, perhaps most important, who pays for it all?

That's just a cost of doing business.
said by Blackbird:

It would be great if the "search industry" would step forward and itself work out and implement a reasonable approach... but that's certainly not how I'd bet. Hence my cynicism...

Yeah, it will be business as usual until the end of time without legislation with teeth, hence my optimism that the issue is getting attention.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

1 recommendation

Blackbird

Premium Member

said by Snowy:

said by Blackbird:

For openers, how would a "simple search engine opt-out feature" actually work to assure that the purported target of a search is, in fact, the actual entity demanding the search results for him/her be blocked

That wouldn't require a need to reinvent the wheel.
Opt-out features are already in place that although not perfect provide a model. Spokeo comes to mind first »www.spokeo.com/blog/2011 ··· em-works

Also I couldn't believe for a moment that an effective algorithm is beyond the expertise of the search engines.
If they can index it - they can manage it.

The problem in this case of search engines is that the opt-out is not for "account" data of the person/corporation themselves at the search engine involved... it has to do with information appearing that has been placed on other websites and simply 'crawled' and indexed by the search engine. That engine has no way to know which of its 436,055 results for John Smith, Jr. comprise 5,655 entries for a particular John Smith, Jr. who demands his "hits" be removed. Unless, of course, that John Smith, Jr. identifies the 5,655 links specifically in his request... then the engine has to determine whether he, indeed, is the actual John Smith, Jr. that is referred to in each of those specific links before blocking their results. All of which will have no immediate effect for another website somewhere else that directly picks up, copies, and publishes one of the blocked sites' information the next day after the blocking - and hence suddenly pops up in the search engine thereafter, regardless of all the blocking done to that point. On the modern Internet, data is like a virus - it spreads and replicates almost of its own volition.

If data analysis and complainant authentication were easy, the three-letter guys wouldn't have many thousands of analysis employees in multiple facilities worldwide and one of them be building a mega-facility in Utah.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

John Smith Jr. is a perfect example of a point of diminishing returns.
With ~208,000,000 Google hits the sheer volume is going to offer John Smith Jr. ample anonymity within a search engine.
If every name were as common there would be little need for this regulation.

Blackbird
Built for Speed
Premium Member
join:2005-01-14
Fort Wayne, IN

Blackbird

Premium Member

said by Snowy:

John Smith Jr. is a perfect example of a point of diminishing returns.
With ~208,000,000 Google hits the sheer volume is going to offer John Smith Jr. ample anonymity within a search engine.
If every name were as common there would be little need for this regulation.

Indeed, the example name I chose for illustrative purposes was too common... but various less common names would produce the kind of numbers in the example. The point being that for many names, there will be a large (but not enormous) number of hits, of which hundreds or thousands of entries may apply to a particular individual of that name... and the principle remains that it becomes difficult and costly to identify and authenticate those specific entries in order to block just them. That raises major obstacles to any kind of simple registry of persons wanting their names removed from search engines... which is really the point I was trying to make.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by Blackbird:

That raises major obstacles to any kind of simple registry of persons wanting their names removed from search engines... which is really the point I was trying to make.

It's a valid point too.
But let's not forget that search engines are already connecting data points, creating dossiers that collate data specific to what they believe know is a single identity.
So when John Smith Jr. @123 Walnut St in Sacramento CA opts out they know what data they have that is specific to that identity.

As the name gets less common the point of return is only going to increase.
The challenge here is to have enough motivation for the search engines to cooperate.
OZO
Premium Member
join:2003-01-17

1 recommendation

OZO to Blackbird

Premium Member

to Blackbird
I think the ruling is not about how to remove "John Smith Jr" form all search queries. It's about removing links to specific document (URI) when any search query is made. In other words, if John Smith Jr asks to do it, he specifies URI (link to the document) and tells why the info in that document is inaccurate, obsolete, damaging his reputation, etc... Then search engines should block all references (links) to it.

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by OZO:

I think the ruling is not about how to remove "John Smith Jr" form all search queries. It's about removing links to specific document (URI) when any search query is made....

Reading the updated link it sure seems as if it deals with with people selectively having links removed as opposed to all links removed - In which case the ruling is idiotic.
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI

Mele20

Premium Member

OZO See Profile is right about this ruling. But why does that make the ruling "idiotic"?

Snowy
Lock him up!!!
Premium Member
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI

Snowy

Premium Member

said by Mele20:

OZO See Profile is right about this ruling. But why does that make the ruling "idiotic"?

That's very obvious.
It's the difference between wanting to be left alone & shaping one's image.
We already have the ability to shape our images by our actions.
What many people don't have is the right to be left to themselves from the search engines.