This reminds me that sometimes search results will have "results were removed from this page due to DMCA complaint, click here to view it" and then you can go through and see the whole list of URLs that were removed... and they're often the torrent/warez sites with the real pirated content, so it's almost like they added a "pirate mode" filter. (I don't pirate anything these days, so I don't need it, but still a little amusing that Google is basically taking the "removed from search results" rather literally.)
I imagine this won't be a popular opinion, but I don't see why it is necessary for this site to populate the list using javascript when server-side scripting would suffice.
Maybe they're trying to fool search bots so their site won't get delisted? I'm fairly sure Google at least has a bot built on Chrome (or rather Chrome was built around their search bot) that executes JS just fine.
Unfortunately, all it does is make a site that doesn't degrade well with scripting turned off.
The Stan O'Neil one is incorrect. Google spokes persons was on BBC Radio the other day and stated that it was one of the commenters on the article that requested the removal.
Here I found a source: http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/07/04/google-takedown-requ...
Out of curiosity, how is Bing handling this same situation? It applies to them as well, correct?
This is going to unleash hell when it gets big enough to be near the top google search results. Not only will anybody googling somebody know what they did, they'll know the person wanted it removed.
I wonder how long it will take for google to de-list the site.
So the moral is simple: in the 21th century you have no right to be forgotten. Not sure if it's actually fine.
So now it's a "Right to a Streisand effect"
Most of the things I see in the comments from the supporters of the law are selfish arguments, what if Joe couldn't delete his ugly story from the past, everyone wants this tool, maybe they want to remove something in the future about themselves, it might come in handy, they want it so badly that they are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech, maybe Joe should be more careful instead of trying to bury what he did to get away because Joe might become someone important and we should know things that otherwise will get buried.
This page is almost 1MB downloaded, including 5 fonts, bootstrap, angular, and jquery. It does not need to be this complicated. My facebook homepage, including images, is smaller than this site.
So if this list is published, won't this have kind of a Streisand effect for people who request to be removed from Google search results?
Let's face it, this is simply an attempt to make it harder for Google to operate in the EU. It's probably mainly normal bureaucratic nonsense, encouraged along by some nationalism and probably a bit from european corporations hoping to gain some market share away.
Google's search removal request URL under European Data Protection law.
https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=we...
Netcraft Risk Rating is 10/10 http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://hiddenfro...
LOL - so now google.com + hiddenfromgoogle.com == the entire internets!
Perhaps the list would be more representative if it included at least a few victims of sexual exploitation, or teenagers who previously had trouble getting naked images of themselves removed from servers hosted outside the EU. Ideally it would also include a link to every child porn web site on the IWF's blacklist, as used by at least the UK.
The problem with simply listing known cases where the "censorship" mechanism has some inefficiencies is that it hides the many cases where it can have a very real benefit to peoples' lives. The current implementation of the EU ruling leaves a lot to be desired, but let's not challenge its intent - restoring an element of privacy and security that search engines have been strip mining for their own benefit for over a decade.