Google lawsuit should have implications for Photo.net

[torben_frank_greve]

<p>That's is my honest opinion....<br>

Google has just lost a lawsuit in the EU supreme court forcing Google to delete all data concerning the person who sued them because the hit results were damaging to him.<br>

The court not only agreed with the plaintiff but also affirmed that ANYONE has the right to be forgotten on the internet.<br>

As such the lawsuit can now serve as precedence for people who insist on being removed from websites like this.<br>

I was a member here almost 10 years ago, but over time forgot my username and password. I suspect that I also don't use the email associated with my photo.net account anymore.<br /><br />The fact that Photo.net write in their terms that accounts can't be deleted is VERY MOOT.<br />I would based on the Google case say that maybe it's time that Photo.net employees once and for all grew up and saw the reasonable idea in letting people disappear from their site if they so wish.<br>

I my case, my photography life has evolved so greatly that I no longer can associate myself with the horrid photos I uploaded back then, so I indeed find it damaging that my name is associated with that account.<br>

How about it Photo.net? Just because you wrote something on a page you labelled "terms" doesn't mean that you sometimes yourselves should stop up and question wether you are being reasonable or just kids playing adults.<br>

I have already contacted you from your questionnaire, but I think this debate is too important, since my case is not the first. I suspect there's quite a lot of profiles or people who wants to be deleted.</p>

<p>Kindly<br />Torben (Frank) Greve</p>

[vrankin]

<p>The implications of this case are huge beyond imagining.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>The lawsuit is specific to search engine results and not the content those results find. Also, in the US, First Amendment rights often dominate privacy concerns.</p>

[Norman 202]

<i>As such the lawsuit can now serve as precedence for people who insist on being removed from websites like this.</i>

<p>

Is that correct. I thought the lawsuit only dealt with search result, the pages themselves remain.

<p>

Edit: cross posted with Jeff. Also I think the lawsuit only applies to the EU. Results removed from google.co.uk, say, might be visible in google.com

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>WRT photo.net: you can remove your photos. Removing threads could be problematic since the flow of a discussion may get lost. I assume it wouldn't be too difficult for admins to change someones name into something like "anonymous_number_x" and leave the thread intact.<br>

Please note that the Google ruling does not apply to other parts of the world and for the moment, not to photo.net.</p>

[G-P]

<p>People have the ability to request a name change and 99.9% of the time grant the right for people to change their name (only times we don't is if they try to change their name to something offensive) - this accommodates both our need to keep steam of discussion in forum intact, while granting anonymity to those that wish to have it. You can delete your photos if you wish. Hope this helps!</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There are significant differences between user content on photo.net (and similar sites), and the Google issues regarding content and privacy. The primary difference is that all photo.net users agreed to the <a href="/info/terms-of-use">Terms of Use</a> and voluntarily submitted their content - written comments and photographs - for use on site, per the TOU.</p>

<p>Some users may discuss a renegotiation of those terms with photo.net administration, or a modification or diversion from official policy. Generally speaking the site has been receptive to reasonable accommodations when users wished to have some content deleted or modified - such as a photo a family member, friend or client wished to be withdrawn from publication on a website. We've usually been reasonably receptive to those requests on the forums, because members usually don't have access to edit or modify their written posts and photos submitted to forums after the 10-20 minute edit window expires. But as other folks have explained, wholesale deletion of content from forums would make an incomprehensible mess of conversations.</p>

<p>But the Google issue, privacy issue, and the the concept of a right to be forgotten, while valid, are irrelevant to the photo.net TOU. The former issues involve content usage over which internet participants have little or no control - they didn't sign or give tacit agreement to any terms of use with Google. The latter involves a contract with photo.net to which the user agree, same as with every bit of software on your computer and mobile devices. But very few people actually read the TOU for anything so they tend to forget that they agreed to those terms simply by clicking "Yes" and continuing to participate on a site or use the software.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"The fact that Photo.net write in their terms that accounts can't be deleted is VERY MOOT."<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>How so? You seem to think allowing their continuing existence is of practical importance. The opposite of moot.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's also worth pointing out that even the EU's "right" to be forgotten doesn't mandate that Google remove every search result that mentions your name when the presence of your name is a result of your being a public figure, a convicted criminal, or someone whose name is findable because it's part of public records (like ownership of real estate, participation in public hearings or court cases, donations to political campaigns, etc). <br /><br />And it probably can't be repeated often enough: this isn't about getting your name removed from where it's mentioned on some web site - just about whether search engines that are big enough to be targets for EU governments must review removal requests and make judgements about whether to make their search engines ignore the fact that you're mentioned on other web sites.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>It seems to me that you could contact photo.net, arrange to make a new password, and simply delete the photos you don't want to be associated with.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Too easy, doesn't allow using ALL CAPS words in an effort to make an irrelevant legal argument.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The Google case was that Google should remove all LINKS to articles about a person. It didn't rule that the articles themselves had to be removed. In fact they <em>upheld</em> the rights of the publisher of the articles concerned to leave them published.</p>

<p>As such the Google ruling, even if it was law in the US (which it isn't), wouldn't apply to photo.net unless photo.net goes into the search engine business and starts linking to articles about users.</p>

<p>Photo.net allows users to remove any data they have on the site in their bio and any pictures they have on the site. Any postings they make are not removed because to do so could make nonsense out of the threads they were in. As Glenn points out, we normally allow (approved) name changes on request as long as the name requested seems reasonable (nothing offensive, nothing that might be confused with other users, nothing that looks like advertising etc.). If you want to be "John/Jane Doe Jr 123" You can be.</p>

<p>If you have forgotten your old login and password, if you can give some evidence that you did own the account concerned, photo.net will give you access to it again so you can remove pictures, biography etc.</p>

<p>So the Google/EU case has no connection to what photo.net does or is doing.</p>

[torben_frank_greve]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that you could contact photo.net, arrange to make a new password, and simply delete the photos you don't want to be associated with.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already tried this... Photo.net said they weren't able to verify that I fact was myself because I can't remember the correct email adress, much less have access to that email at this point, so I wasn't allowed access to the account. So now it's just floating around here, inaccessible.</p>

[mike dixon]

"Photo.net said they weren't able to verify that I fact was myself because I can't remember the correct email adress, much less have access to that email at this point, so I wasn't allowed access to the account."

 

I see this as a good thing. I really wouldn't want someone to write to photo.net claiming that they were me, and even though they couldn't even say what email address was used to create the account, photo.net would give them access to my account.