Documenting the Right to Be Forgotten, shows you who is behind the action, Streisand Effect at scale

GigaOm’s Jeff John Roberts posts on a site that documents the execution of the “Right to be Forgotten."

“Hidden from Google” shows sites censored under EU’s right-to-be-forgotten law

22 HOURS AGO

3 Comments

eraser
SUMMARY:

A controversial law lets EU citizens remove search results from Google. A web developer who feels this is censorship has made a site to keep track of some of the sites that are disappearing.

the Hidden from Google website has an about page.

The purpose of this site is to list all links which are being censored by search engines due to the recent ruling of "Right to be forgotten" in the EU.

This list is a way of archiving the actions of censorship on the Internet. It is up to the reader to decide whether our liberties are being upheld or violated by the recent rulings by the EU.

This Right to Be Forgotten seems like it is the Streisand effect at scale.

The Streisand effect is the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California, inadvertently generated further publicity. Similar attempts have been made, for example, in cease-and-desist letters, to suppress numbers, files and websites. Instead of being suppressed, the information receives extensive publicity and media extensions such as videos and spoof songs, often being widely mirrored across the Internet or distributed on file-sharing networks.[1][2]

Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term after Streisand unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for violation of privacy. The US$50 million lawsuit endeavored to remove an aerial photograph of Streisand's mansion from the publicly available collection of 12,000 Californiacoastline photographs.

One thing that could sabotage attempts to Regulate Data Center Industry, seeing the effect of Regulations

For those who have to implement government regulations one of the few options to influence the regulation is to try and influence the defining of the regulation.  Once the regulation is put in place then you can try and negotiate the compliance to the regulation.  The hopes of changing the regulation is almost impossible.

For years the regulation on the Data Center Industry was an inevitability.  The EU’s “right to be forgotten” regulation on Google and other search engines followed the pattern of governments meeting and playing their political games to create something legally binding.  Google fought as hard as they could to prevent the “right to be forgotten” regulation, but it is now in effect.  And, we are able to see the effects of the regulation since the results are out there for all to see.  Oh oh, the results are not what people thought it would be and the vision of what was sold by the government regulators is not as accurate.  There is data to see how effective the regulation is in achieving its goal.  The regulators by trying to regulate the data center industry are finding they themselves could be measured as to how well their laws are working.

The Guardian has a post that says the “right to be forgotten” is not enforceable.

EU 'right to be forgotten' law unenforceable, says justice minister

Simon Hughes says law currently being negotiated by EU states could lead to thousands of misconceived complaints
...

The judgment had created a new stream of complaints to internet companies which might eventually find their way to the Information Commissioner's Office and be appealed up to tribunals, Hughes added.

He denied that the ICO was already swamped but acknowledged that thousands of requests had been made since the ECJ judgment, the result of which, he said, had been "unexpected".

He said: "There is no right given by the judgment for people to have their personal data deleted from the search engine results. There is no unfettered right. There is no right to be forgotten. Not in the law of the UK, not in directives, not in the judgments of the court."

Hughes said a "mischievous" business of online reputation management had emerged since the judgment, offering to assist people trying to request removal of information online.

On the practicalities, Hughes commented: "It looks to me as if it may be an unmanageable task. It will be a phenomenal task. It's not technically possible to remove all traces of data loaded on to the internet from other sources. You can't exercise the right to be forgotten. The information system could not be made to do it.

Google is cooperating by providing the information that supports seeing the effect of regulation.

"Google are being very cooperative. My interpretation is that this is difficult and uncomfortable for them. They are conscious of their global influence. I think they would be very keen for the law to be changed as soon as possible and will collaborate with us to do so."

It was probably not a coincidence that a number of requests to remove stories by high-profile journalists had been "on the top of the pile" when Google came to consider removals initially. "That series of events suggests to me that people want to make sure their positions are known," Hughes said.

Ministers have estimated that the cost to British businesses of enforcing a new EU law on the right to be forgotten and related regulations would be up to £360m a year.

Greenpeace, EFF and 10th amendment center protest at NSA data center on surveillance practices

Fox13 Salt Lake City reports on Greenpeace, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Tenth Amendment Center protesting the NSA Data Center in Utah.

VIDEO: Blimp flies over NSA’s Utah Data Center to protest ‘illegal mass surveillance program’

BLUFFDALE, Utah — A group of activists from a coalition of environmental, privacy and anti-spying organizations flew a blimp over the NSA’s massive Utah Data Center in protest over allegations of domestic spying.

“It’s not often that you can get — literally — over the NSA,” Parker Higgins, an activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told FOX 13 on Friday.

NewImage
 

EU's Demands on Google Search is the first step in Regulation

There is all kinds of news out there on how good or bad the EU’s action is on Google to erase search results.

Wall Street Journal

European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web

New York Times-16 hours ago
The highest court in the European Union decided on Tuesday thatGoogle must, in some cases, honor requests from its search engine users to ...
 
 
 
 

If this does go away though, there will just be something else that comes back.  Why?  Because this ruling is just the first step in efforts to regulate the operations of a Google and other technology companies.  What comes next after a regulation is compliance which requires a disclosure of data.  This data can then be used to create more regulations and more compliance.

Consider this.  What ability does the EU have to control operations of Google?  

What's More Evil Nuclear Power or the People Who Implement Nuclear Power Poorly?

If you bring up Nuclear Power there are many who are anti-nuclear and bring up the danger of nuclear power.  The attacks are focused on nuclear as a thing and things don’t defend themselves.

Reading The Multidisciplinarian’s post on a Japanese Nuclear Reactor closer to the epicenter of the Mar 11, 2011 earthquake than Fukushima.

The Onagawa Reactor Non-Meltdown

On March 11, 2011, the strongest earthquake in Japanese recorded history hit Tohuku, leaving about 15,000 dead. The closest nuclear reactor to the quake’s epicenter was the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station operated by Tohoku Electric Power Company. As a result of the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that destroyed the town of Onagawa, the Onagawa nuclear facility remained intact and shut itself down safely, without incident. The Onagawa nuclear facility was the vicinity’s only safe evacuation destination. Residents of Onagawa left homeless by the natural disasters sought refuge in the facility, where its workers provided food.

The excellent point is how the focus has been anti-nuclear as opposed to the cause by the regulators.

Despite these findings, the world’s response Fukushima has been much more focused on opposition to nuclear power than on opposition to corrupt regulatory government bodies and the cultures that foster them.

For more details check out this report.

Two scholars from USC, Airi Ryu and Najmedin Meshkati, recently published “Why You Haven’t Heard About Onagawa Nuclear Power Station after the Earthquake and Tsunami of March 11, 2011,” their examination of the contrasting safety mindsets of TEPCO, the firm operating the Fukushima nuclear plant, and Tohoku Electric Power, the firm operating Onagawa.

Check out this youtube video of Onagawa to get an idea of Tsunami’s impact.