Re: The polluter pays...
"Yes, but the stream isn't getting cleaned up."
I wish I had multiple upvotes for this.
This is where my problem with the ICOs (frankly ridiculous) take lies. What the ICO is arguing for amounts to a cover up of the informations existence, nothing more. Its similar to suggesting that ordering the press to stop reporting corruption, government ineptitude, whatever would mean the problem didn't exist - and we've been there before. The original page Google linked to is still there, and probably referenced by multiple other pages, links, quotes etc, and that is what needs cleaning up, after which the "Google problem" will go away. Its the page that needs removing, not googles link to it, but perhaps thats an epic can of worms they can't quite get their heads round.
The ICO (and possibly the court) seem to either not understand this, or to be attempting an easy 'fix' for a complex problem, tinged in the ICO's case with a little bit of nastiness - "... making millions and millions out of processing people's personal information". And thats relevant why? I'm as ready to belt Google with a heavy stick as the next man for their rampant, cynical abuses of privacy, but in this case its not about the 'personal information' processing they directly make money out of, it's about a service which makes the web both usable and useful.
Notwithstanding there's a 'public interest' factor to be accounted for, money usually cicumvents that for exactly the people it shouldn't quite nicely - remember 'Trafigura - the pollution that didn't happen' after the lawyers waded in? That's what really, really bothers me personally, that this leads to censorship for those that can afford it. It'll end up as "you can't index this article, because it mentions X as director of the Big Corrupt Polluters Ltd". So not only does X get to go on with a blemish free character in the wider world, but Big Corrupt Polluters Ltd get a tidy little image makeover as a free gift.
I blame the court in this case less than the ICOs specific take, which strikes me as very a very lazy approach on almost every level that looks suspiciously like "you deal with it, I can't be arsed, but maybe going all finger waggy on yer will persuade others I'm right" - quite in keeping with the usual bureaucratic penchant for treating the public like six year olds.
I've previously viewed the ICO as merely ineffective and a bit pointless, but it looks like I'm going to have to add 'lazy and willfully obtuse'.