Osservatorio sul diritto e telecomunicazioni informatiche, a cura del dott. V. Spataro dal 1999, 9063 documenti.

Il dizionario e' stato letto volte.

Segui via: Email - Telegram
  Dal 1999   spieghiamo il diritto di internet  Store  Podcast  Dizionario News alert    


Milano, sab 2 dicembre 2023:, Social media non vi temo - Ascolti tra Marketing e AI

Temi attuali:
Algoritmi ChatGPT Intelligenza artificiale Privacy WordPress

Oblio 10.09.2014    Pdf    Appunta    Letti    Post successivo  

Oblivium and Google: is it right fo inform ?

Google have to manage requests from their customers. No alternatives.




Oblivium and Google: is it right to inform ?

Zoòn Politikòn Bion !
It is greek, written by Aristotele. Literllaly: human beings are political beings. The meaning is we are people living in communities, with rules. Please also read the Protagora's mith.
We fix rules to let us live togheter. Nobody can decide about the lives, except the State.
Most uf us know what happened. An European Court condemned Google to respect the requests from people who want some infos about themselves removed.
I won't tell the case here, neither the name that is learning on his shoulder what is the Straisand effect.
Google doesn't understand the decision, that is quite clear, even if to comply it has to listen 100.000 requests (as Google stated yesterday, 9 sept 2014,  in Madrid).
There's a group of expert, the CEOs and many lawyers. The title is if and how Google can inform.
I don't think this is the right question, even if I understand this is the question Google is facing with.
The question is different. We are not talking about a small librarian, or a post official that know everything of the quarter.
We are talking about Google. 
Someone in Madrid told about the nature of a search engine. I think we don't face now with the nature of a search engine, but with what Google does.
Let's take 2 steps behind.
Google is wifi tracking collecting mac addresses from wifi routers during the photo taken for street view.
It's Google glass, with a camera connected to internet to save in cloud photos, audio and videos, also from interiors.
It's youtube.
It's maps,
It's email by imap, with a permanent connection with their servers when you browse the web.
It's calendar.
It's an account on android.
It's a task running after the end of chrome.
It's cloud print trasmitting output trought their servers.
And it's advertising, profiling people.
It's not only search engine, isn't it ?
It's not a duty or right to inform. We have not a right to pretend that Google does it to let us know everything.
Let's start from a different perspective: listening to the users.
Google remind us that it does to do what the users want. So he want to inform.
But Google fight some bad seo practices, pornography (remember how ?), now verify every ad to respect the misuse of competitor's names. 
So why the fear to listen to a customer (the user of his services) and comply with their requests ?
I've seen a different way US customer care answers to european users. I often redirected my questions directly to the managers, and they understood me. European customer services are absolutly more near our cultures and requests.
In this moment Google want to listen why he shoud limit to inform. The question is totally different. Why he should say about me what he wants, disregarding what I think about his work ? Tripadvisor, Yelp, Facebook should learn something, isn't it ?
So the real question if Google can offer to the world infos and save our profiles for ... ever.  Profiling is a job, his job, not our interests.
Snowden should let we think: if we have to much data, some Agencies want them. Perhaps now to offer us something for free, as the circus in Collodi's Pinocchio, but tomorrow ? We all know what happened in Holland, Belgium, Polland when Germany had the records, national records, of people. 1994 and the television recording us, do you remember ?
We have all the duty to limit these data. Another decision of the human court says that no lawmaker can state to track everything for ... ever. Remember also this one.
Finally my favorite perspective.
Jesus asked us to forgive to be forgiven. We will be forgiven in the same way we forgive. Forgiveness is also about time. If someone pretend to remember everything from everyone, to inform, possibily to inform journalists, we are not doing something neutral.
We want to remember forever his mistakes. Even criminal laws allows to delete crimes. Even rules on bankrupcy.
Newspapers are different.
Does Google wants to become a newspaper ?

10.09.2014 Spataro

Diritto all'oblio e personaggio pubblico, confini ancora incerti
Disposizioni per la prevenzione delle discriminazioni e la tutela dei diritti delle persone che sono state affette da malattie oncologiche
245 La Cassazione sul danno e la richiesta di diritto all'oblio di notizia giornalistica
Provvedimento del 27 aprile 2023 [9895535] deindicizzazione
Mauro Alovisio on LinkedIn: Per un milione di guariti dal tumore in arrivo il diritto all'oblio…
Provvedimento del 23 marzo 2023 [9883613] oblio, commenti, ego surfing e rimozione url
Analisi del provvedimento 9883613 su oblio, ego surfing e deindicizzazione
Cassazione e oblio di personaggio non pubblico tramite parole chiave e danno per termini inclusi nelle url
Cassazione su danni da notizia giornalistica non aggiornata

Segui le novità in materia di Oblio su via Telegram
oppure via email: (gratis Info privacy)

dallo store:
visita lo store

Dal 1999 il diritto di internet. I testi sono degli autori e di IusOnDemand srl p.iva 04446030969 - diritti riservati - Privacy - Cookie - Condizioni d'uso - in 0.073