Google introducing tool for under-18s to remove images of them from search

_moof 2021-08-19 15:50:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Possibly controversial proposition, which I offer as a discussion prompt, not necessarily a position: What if we stopped relentlessly cataloging and indexing information about every single person on the planet in a way that anyone can search instantaneously?

Genuinely interested in what folks think about this, pro or con.

Edited to add: The reason I think this question is interesting is because I think it shines a light on some tension between privacy rights and freedom of information.

titzer 2021-08-19 16:10:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It wouldn't have been controversial just one generation in the past. For example, prior to the 1990s when this became technically feasible, people would have thought this was downright creepy and would have clamored to ban the practice preemptively.

It snuck up on us, or rather, it was quietly imposed upon us by profiteers whose meteoric growth was celebrated by all power structures.

karaterobot 2021-08-19 16:24:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I agree with you, but just want to politely add that it didn't really sneak up on us, we were warned from the beginning, we just ignored it.

It's like in the story about the frog in the pot of hot water, if someone keeps telling the frog, "you know, that water isn't going to stop getting hotter," and the frog is saying "seems fine to me, I think you worry too much."

floatingatoll 2021-08-19 16:20:36 +0000 UTC [ - ]

We had X-No-Archive: YES throughout the 90s, which thankfully DejaNews honored (up until Google purchased them in 2001, anyways). Search engines are destroying the social fabric of humanity, making it possible for haters to hate with perfect precision. We've been on the wrong course ('index everything! archive everything!') for thirty years now, and we've earned today's toxic and deadly Internet that resulted from it. Oh well.

actually_a_dog 2021-08-19 17:04:46 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> ...haters to hate with perfect precision.

Except... not. All too often, we see stuff people did or wrote years ago being used against them. Those things may not reflect the person they are today, and that's even worse than "hat[ing] with perfect precision."

floatingatoll 2021-08-19 17:07:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]

That's certainly one view, but it's not my view. If people don't feel safe participating today on some topic that haters have google alerts set up for, then those future archives will be heavily biased in favor of content that's acceptable to the haters of that time. Sounds like a great way to ensure the spread of hate across social generations to me.

clairity 2021-08-19 16:54:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> "...the wrong course ('index everything! archive everything!') for thirty years now..."

that's overly broad. although i particularly dislike dichotomies, we can draw a simple one here for illustrative purposes: there's public and private information, and omni-indexing/-archiving is the "wrong course" only for private information, with private information encompassing more than just sensitive data, including any personal information a person chooses not to divulge publicly.

humanity has absolutely advanced from indexing all public information, even considering the exponential rise of disinformation and idle bullshit. instantaneous knowledge coalition and mass multiway communication are the two astonishing advances stemming from the internet. and now we're dealing with the inevitable but unintended negative consequences of these amazing advances.

lstamour 2021-08-19 16:51:45 +0000 UTC [ - ]

In defence of search engines, when content disappears from the web, it disappears from the search index within months. And robots.txt has been a thing since forever.

But I agree with the overall point, that archiving is distinct from indexing, and we need better mechanisms than copyright to take down content given many services terms allow content to be kept forever and/or make it hard to delete content uploaded by others. This might come down to free speech vs privacy, though.

floatingatoll 2021-08-19 16:54:52 +0000 UTC [ - ]

If I ever again post a website, I’m going to post it with basic auth, so that search engines won’t index it to begin with. Exposure doesn’t pay the bills, after all.

dalbasal 2021-08-19 16:55:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

>> It snuck up on us, or rather, it was quietly imposed upon us by profiteers

Into the early 2000s, everyone still knew never to use a real name online. Murderers would probably get you or something. Don't want randos knowing you you are. Besides, handles were cooler. Some well known people had publicly known aliases, but aliases were the norm... like on HN.

In my bubble, it was FB that really broke through this. I hear about it as a social network, but with real names. That way you could friend people from real life. It was actually quite a revelation, like a public address book... very useful.

Anyway... Zuck is, IMO, more of an "eye for the tides" guy than the tide itself. He realised that "relentlessly cataloging and indexing information about every single person on the planet in a way that anyone can search instantaneously" was happening and he decided to be there first.

ghaff 2021-08-19 17:06:58 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Anonymity was mixed.

Definitely pretty much everyone was anonymous on warez boards and the like. On the other hand, a lot of local BBSs actually had something of a local community in real life as well. And the people accessing Usenet from corporate and academic accounts often used their name and affiliation.

OJFord 2021-08-19 17:05:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> Into the early 2000s, everyone still knew never to use a real name online.

In the mid-2000s I was at school, where we were simultaneously being taught (in 'Information and Communication Technology' lessons) never to use a real name online [0], and signing up to Bebo & MySpace with our real names.

It's (there beginning to exist people) growing up with the internet that all but killed that, I'm sure of it.

[0] with some limited web ring/social network type site for schools, for which we given aliases and then, I don't know, wrote BBcode and marquees and stuff about our school-safe interests and hobbies

spoonjim 2021-08-19 17:07:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Bezos has said repeatedly that nobody is the tide itself. You capture opportunity not by swimming to the tide but by getting in place before it comes.

norov 2021-08-19 16:25:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]

They threw dollars at influencers and celebrities and told us we can be like them and increase our brand if we fork over our data and live stream our lives.

shadowgovt 2021-08-19 16:48:08 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> by all power structures

Including one of the largest power structures, "users who enjoyed the convenience of finding people."

drdeca 2021-08-19 17:05:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]

“Eventually, convenience will eat all worldviews.” - smbc-comics

glial 2021-08-19 16:50:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Voyeurism is a powerful force.

echelon 2021-08-19 16:24:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Many of us who grew up on or before the web think this has always been creepy and shudder at each new step we take into darkness. Privacy advocates have been screaming into the ether since the beginning, and it hasn't done anything to stop the erosion of privacy.

A huge percentage of society is willing to accept anything Facebook, Google, and Apple throw at them and simply don't care about the present and future ramifications. Some think about it, others enjoy the convenience or think that there's no way it can harm them. Some even drink the cool aid and honestly believe surveillance is good for society.

I fully expect to wind up in a future where we're all starring in our own versions of the Truman Show. Sensors everywhere, constantly streaming our choices and preferences. Our health data, associations, and even thoughts and feelings used against us.

When everyone is watching everything you do, you're no longer free.

hypertele-Xii 2021-08-19 16:27:19 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> What if we stopped relentlessly cataloging and indexing information about every single person on the planet in a way that anyone can search instantaneously?

This would require a cultural shift away from gossip. But humans love gossip.

If you can't stop gossip, you can't stop someone from saying things they learned about another person, and by extension you can't stop it from being automated neither.

mc32 2021-08-19 16:51:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I used to think it was very weird for job applicants in Germany to have to attach a passport-like photo of themselves to their CVs/Resumes… And then! People gladly populate their linked-in and other social media not only with their likenesses but voluntarily offer their opinions attached to such images and real life personae!

So…

leetcrew 2021-08-19 16:14:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I don't actually think having hits for your name through google is the most pressing privacy issue we face today. if I can find you by searching your name, one of two things is likely true: 1) you have opted in to indexing by having a public facebook, linkedin, etc., or 2) your name has appeared in a news article. the solution to 1) is pretty simple; don't have public profiles with your real name if you don't want to be indexed. 2) is a more subtle issue, but is more of an issue with news articles than google.

sillystuff 2021-08-19 17:05:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]

3) Your employer, school, social club, etc. has included you in their organization's public directory, and does not offer the option to opt out, nor do they protect the directory in any way from being indexed / scraped.

Retric 2021-08-19 16:20:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]

There are many ways your photo can be made public that have nothing to do with either of those. For example a company you worked for might publish a photo of you without asking you etc.

What’s more interesting is how inaccurate a lot of this data is. Spokeo for example seems to think I am related to someone because they share a last name and we lived in the same apartment building at some point. Google’s approach of simply collecting third party information simply isn’t reliable.

ehsankia 2021-08-19 16:41:14 +0000 UTC [ - ]

So should Google be the moderator of the entire WWW and resolve every single dispute on any websites posting information about someone who doesn't want their information there? Or should no one ever have their website searchable because a small handful of websites post content which 100% of the people in the content don't agree with? And what if I post about someone who assaulted me, and the criminal wants my content off my website? These are not easy problems and "let's throw it all out" doesn't seem like a solution.

macksd 2021-08-19 16:28:32 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I wouldn't say it's the most pressing privacy issue, but we can collectively focus on more than just a single priority. For instance, I wouldn't call someone's medical career useless just because they weren't working on reducing heart disease.

For a long time the first Google result for me was someone from my school posting about work I did. I didn't find their comments particularly complimentary. I wasn't wild about the idea that someone at a prospective employer would probably Google me and see that. I didn't like the idea of harassing the site owner into taking it down, but I will say a big motivator for me in open-source has been flooding the Internet with better reflections of myself to drown out stuff like that. Stuff ends up on the Internet without people's knowledge or express consent all the time. When I joined LinkedIn they already knew a bunch of people I could be connected to. I never gave them that info about my relationships. Other people did! First thing I got was a suggestion to connect with my ex-girlfriend. I hardly think I'm an anomaly with stuff like this.

edit: As another datapoint, I have a coworker who is fanatical about privacy. Will refuse to stand in group photos. Will ask you to delete photos they may appear in if they see you taking one. Gives random names on restaurant orders. No LinkedIn, no social media. I Googled their name: tons of accurate photos, an accurate phone number, school history, etc.

ehsankia 2021-08-19 16:36:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is missing the point though. Let's focus on #1 from above; most people who post things online probably want Google to index them and even do SEO tricks to get there. I post stuff about myself on my website because I want people to see it.

The issue comes when I put stuff on my website about someone else, as in your example. I want my content to be on Google, but you want my content off of Google. At that point, there's a conflict and it's not clear to me who should be resolving it and what position Google should take.

The options are:

1. No one gets to be indexed, which will hurt the millions who want people to discover their content

2. Google has to manually decide in every single instance like the one you mention in your post, that seems unrealistic

3. The status quo, which is that Google indexes what's posted publicly.

c22 2021-08-19 16:28:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Or 3) you've ever used a phone, paid a bill, or given your contact information to any business, in which case there will also be several "teaser" results likely containing your name, age, birthdate, current and previous addresses, and phone number hosted by third party services who will happily include more information for $20 or 30 bucks.

ThrustVectoring 2021-08-19 16:28:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

The solution to both is actually to have such a common name that you get lost in the noise. If your first + last gives seven digits of google search results, you have to put in some serious SEO work to appear on even the first ten pages, rendering this vector private by default.

surfpel 2021-08-19 16:29:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> you have opted in to indexing

Most people outside tech won’t know that they’re opting into this or what the consequences could be. Children especially can’t be expected to understand that giving away all that personal data could have serious consequences in their future.

extropy 2021-08-19 16:19:17 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Another angle: there is a huge non-public industry of cataloging all the public and not so public information. Available to whoever is ready to pay.

Public indexes is just the surface of the iceberg. And regulating them down would just be more profit for the pay-to-play.

smoe 2021-08-19 16:40:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I think by now the problem is more cultural than technical or juridical. I mean many countries have laws in place that would allow for picture removal.

I'm really glad, that my teenage years where before social media and everyone walking around with internet connected cameras on them all the time. All the stupid and embarrassing things I did only live in the memories of the people I was with and it is fun to talk about every now and then.

But when going out these days, there is an almost constant "peer-surveilance" with everyone taking pictures and videos and immediately sharing them online without reflecting whether it is a good idea and just assuming consent of the others. Then when asking people to remove it, the request is often met with bewilderment or mockery why you'd want that. And sure, I could legally go after the person, but that is not really something you'd want to do within a (extended) circle of friends.

I think there are a lot of very cool things that can be done these days that weren't possible in my time. But the complete disrespect of others peoples privacy and their image is really scary to me.

ghaff 2021-08-19 16:05:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Assuming someone starts covering their online tracks from an early age they can probably largely keep their online presence at a minimum with some caveats.

- You can't really opt-out of things like credit reporting

- You can't control what other people post about you but for the non-famous this is probably a relatively modest presence

- There are certainly situations where many of us have a public presence under our real names. If you ever speak at most conferences for example or publish an article or paper.

Mountain_Skies 2021-08-19 16:15:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Two sources of personal information leaks that are difficult to counteract are voter registration and USPS change of address, both of which are publicly available. In the case of voter registration, as soon as I updated my phone number last year, I went from no spam to getting dozens of SMS spam message per day. About 80% of it was political but the other 20% is the standard scam spam. The political spam mostly ended after the election (there's sometimes fund raising pleas) but the scam stuff continues on. The USPS change of address information quickly ends up on all of those "Your Life" type sites. It's frustrating that such basic government functions end up making it easier for others to track and prey on you.

ghaff 2021-08-19 16:32:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]

There are good reasons a lot of things have historically been public records. Some of the reasons look less good on balance when those records can be instantly copied, data mined, and linked to any number of other digital records.

thomasahle 2021-08-19 16:10:27 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> You can't really opt-out of things like credit reporting

Most countries do fine without mandatory surveillance based credit reporting. And banks still gave out loans before credit cards.

wayoutthere 2021-08-19 16:37:18 +0000 UTC [ - ]

So I am nearly impossible to find. I’m trans and I changed both my legal first and last name when I changed my gender (and the docket was sealed so there is literally no record connecting my current name to my old one). I deleted my social media before I transitioned and I only have LinkedIn. And my new name is too common to easily find me without a few other qualifiers that would require knowing a few things about me (like where I work).

Credit reporting is one thing, but my experience is that they don’t do a great job connecting the dots. I’m still missing my student loans on my credit report, despite having not missed a payment in the last 8 years.

ghaff 2021-08-19 16:52:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Yeah, if the threat model is not wanting a casual Google searcher to look you up and learn things about you, it's probably relatively easy for most people to do--so long as they don't have a job that basically requires them to have their name and face in conference programs, on articles, and the like. Or are otherwise in at least a limited public eye in real life.

That's obviously a lower bar than preventing a determined tracker from learning things about you but it's enough for many people who simply don't want to turn up in a random Google search.

gnopgnip 2021-08-19 16:56:48 +0000 UTC [ - ]

What does it mean specifically if we "stopped relentlessly cataloging and indexing information about every single person on the planet in a way that anyone can search instantaneously", making it illegal to catalogue all of this information? Imposing a tax? Requiring permission of those involved?

judge2020 2021-08-19 16:12:28 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It’s only instantly searchable if it’s public. The only place you can’t control this is when family members or friends take pictures and insist on uploading them to Facebook as public pictures, when the implication of not taking a picture is negative.

etskinner 2021-08-19 15:53:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Looking at the other side of the spectrum, do you think we should still have information available online about prominent people? Politicians, historical figures, etc.?

If so, where do you draw the line between people whose information is useful to the public and people who shouldn't be cataloged?

Hizonner 2021-08-19 16:01:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]

If somebody is seeking a position of power and/or trust from the public, then the public should get the same information about that person that we'd allow an employer to ask for about a prospective employee. So their qualifications for the job, how they intend to do the job, how they've done in similar jobs before, and how they've handled similar types of trust in the past.

Otherwise, frankly, fuck the public.

_moof 2021-08-19 16:02:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Indeed, that's a very difficult line to draw. In the US we have the concept of a public figure, and I'll admit I have no idea how that's actually defined. That being said I've also wondered if it's too blunt a concept. Are public figures entitled to any privacy, and if so, where is that line? I see celebrities being hounded by paparazzi while trying to go about their daily lives, for example, and while I understand the principles behind why that's legal, I have to imagine it's a real drag.

germanier 2021-08-19 16:12:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]

In Germany we draw the line on what type of information the person in question makes public by their own choice. Do you invite tabloids for a home story and let them take pictures? Then other pictures of your home can be published. If you on the other hand never talk about your home and family publicly let alone invite media in, that can remain private. In addition, if the information is relevant to a larger topic (e.g. a corruption scandal involving a politician's home) then you can show anything relevant to that.

ghaff 2021-08-19 16:09:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

See New York Times v. Sullivan (US SCOTUS)

I haven't checked the exact wording of this definition but, as a summary, "The Supreme Court has defined public figures as those who hold government office and those who have achieved a role of special prominence in the affairs of society by reason of notoriety of their achievements or vigor and success with which they seek public's attention. "

zabatuvajdka 2021-08-19 16:29:37 +0000 UTC [ - ]

.

spoonjim 2021-08-19 17:06:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Any child of the Cold War thinks of the "Stasi" as an organization dedicated to cataloging every bit of information about everyone and using it to harm any detractors of the State. Do the same thing and make it publicly available for anyone to harm anyone whatsoever, and you have Google.

2021-08-19 16:32:10 +0000 UTC [ - ]

29athrowaway 2021-08-19 17:04:01 +0000 UTC [ - ]

The situation in the US is much better than it could be.

Yandex has an index of people's faces. You can search pictures by face.

And China... you know. It is a surveillance nightmare.

ProAm 2021-08-19 15:55:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]

A better way to phrase that question is: Do you like the ability to print money while others feed the money machine for you?

This will never go away without regulatory intervention. Too much money in it, too much control, and control leads to power.

Majestic121 2021-08-19 16:00:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You're already arguing that it is desirable to stop this indexation : it's far from obvious, and the question from OP is precisely whether we should try to make it go away or not, not whether it's possible.

fzzzy 2021-08-19 15:59:16 +0000 UTC [ - ]

We could do this by shifting the bulk of online communication to private/ephemeral spaces. The stuff that wants to be cataloged and searched would just be whatever is left in public. I am pro.

jollybean 2021-08-19 16:48:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

My original take on Google when it another search engines were starting is that it should be illegal for them to scrape businesses without 1) explicit permission and licensing, and that 2) doing so across borders should be governed by treaty.

1 would be easily taken care of because businesses want their stuff indexed, but 2 would be quite something i.e. the ascent of privacy laws.

I'd also like to see this 'tool' made available to anyone. I'm not sure if random photos of people are 'in the public interest', or beyond that if we really get some kind of transcendent value out of all that 'data'. My bet is that most of the power we get from 'sharing' has to do with explicit knowledge i.e. news, research, data APIs etc.

TheRealPomax 2021-08-19 16:11:26 +0000 UTC [ - ]

small counter: that's not what google does. How many times has anyone clicked on the "next page" when it comes to search results? Which is another problem Google refuses to fix: if you're not in the top 10, you're not on the internet as far as the rest of the internet can tell.

dheera 2021-08-19 16:22:07 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Also why is this restricted to only under 18? Why can't over-18's also remove personal information?

ciguy 2021-08-19 15:58:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

While Google does this publicly, there are tons of private indexes doing the same thing for marketing, intelligence and other purposes. As long as people keep posting things online someone will be collecting that info and trying to make money off of it.

lettergram 2021-08-19 16:54:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I have done everything in my power to keep my kids off the internet. I tell family members not to take photos, I don’t send them through email, I won’t take photos with phones that are cloud connected, etc etc.

The reality is, I walk in and still see a grandma who doesn’t respect the wishes of my wife and I and are adding filters to my kids faces. Now Instagram has their photos. No consent given. I don’t think she posted, but clearly her phone gave Instagram access.

Imo we need laws forbidding image indexing or collection of images. We also need some serious protections around data. The reality is Google, Microsoft, Apple, Chinese communist party, zoom, etc all have too much data and own everyone. Literally, I can’t imagine the government taking any action at all because of their influence.

So I think we are done, frankly.

giantg2 2021-08-19 16:31:05 +0000 UTC [ - ]

"We're committed to building products that are secure by default, private by design, and that put people in control."

So why is tool just for under 18s?

jagan120 2021-08-19 16:54:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Exactly, why only for under 18s? This should be available for everybody.

jacobsievers 2021-08-19 16:44:50 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I think I might be missing something. I don't see any mention in the post regarding a tool being "introduced."

maerF0x0 2021-08-19 16:22:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Good for them!

I read and really enjoyed "Permanent Record" by Edward Snowden[1]. In it he talked about a time when we didn't use our real names, we'd both change identities and did not expect our identities to be perfectly congruent with our IRL selves. (an element of roleplaying).

I also think that a big part of the problem touches on philosophy, politics, and maybe human nature; Part of the issue isn't that we have something to hide, but that we've allowed people to shame us for things that are ok. We've created a world where the fake is more lauded than the real, and so now people feel pressured to keep up public images that are inhuman.

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/46223297-permanent-recor...

clircle 2021-08-19 15:38:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> we will block ad targeting based on the age, gender, or interests of people under 18

Sounds like I should adjust the age on my Google profile.

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 2021-08-19 16:03:59 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is a right move by Google.

- Even for adults, ad targeting based on gender or age (or race) seems… wrong?

- Would like them to come out and assume all personalization and recommendation systems they have also waive this for children. E.g.: YouTube recommendations are based solely on similar videos versus profile, location, viewing habits, whatever other magic they probably do.

aaomidi 2021-08-19 16:57:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Honestly disabling all ad targeting has been the best thing I've done.

rand0mx1 2021-08-19 15:57:40 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Then many youtube videos will be inaccessible.

toomuchtodo 2021-08-19 16:08:51 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Dummy account for YouTube access (or rather, YouTube-dl scraping).

teddyh 2021-08-19 16:22:41 +0000 UTC [ - ]

youtube-dl can’t download age-restricted videos from YouTube anymore.

toomuchtodo 2021-08-19 16:26:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27359561

FeistySkink 2021-08-19 16:46:56 +0000 UTC [ - ]

You still need to be able to see them in the first place. That is prove your age to Google.

jliptzin 2021-08-19 16:27:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Why only under 18? People lose their right to privacy when they turn 18?

ugjka 2021-08-19 16:36:57 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Google wants no business with drunk and high minors

not2b 2021-08-19 16:52:49 +0000 UTC [ - ]

One difficulty with this is the number of teens with social media accounts that have a false age. Most of our friends' kids and many of my nieces and nephews fall into that category, some because they got an account before age 13 and lied, or were older than that and lied to have access to some forums, or just because they just wanted to pretend to be older (my own daughter is an introvert with good sense and isn't on social media). I suspect that Google and Facebook are well aware of this internally.

mmmBacon 2021-08-19 15:52:06 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Why should this be limited to under 18?

Hizonner 2021-08-19 15:54:55 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Because Google estimates that the profit impact of pretending to care about The Children is positive, whereas the profit impact of actually caring about anybody would be negative.

donohoe 2021-08-19 16:11:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Damn. That’s harsh…

But I can’t argue against your logic.

dleslie 2021-08-19 15:55:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Almost certainly for some form of legal compliance. It looks like Google is doing the bare minimum.

g_p 2021-08-19 15:57:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

GDPR in Europe makes a number of provisions for under-18s, including data removal I believe. This is likely an attempt to get ahead of enforcement of those rules by privacy groups.

2021-08-19 16:21:23 +0000 UTC [ - ]

MeinBlutIstBlau 2021-08-19 15:54:31 +0000 UTC [ - ]

My thoughts too. I don't want to show up in googles indexes for literally everything I do.

stephenhuey 2021-08-19 15:39:33 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Considering how many parents I know who post public photos of their children on social media, it’d be great for other services to provide such tools as well.

JasonFruit 2021-08-19 16:46:43 +0000 UTC [ - ]

> We're committed to building products that are secure by default, private by design, and that put people in control.

How can anyone believe this from any of the big tech companies at this point? The only way Google "put[s] people in control" is to let the public do their customer support for them, the only thing private is the details of their CIA connections, and the only thing secure is their market position.

ineedasername 2021-08-19 16:45:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Giving minors more control over their digital footprint

Soooo.... Why not give everyone the same control over their digital footprint? Yes, minors are a protects class not being if legal age, but it seems reasonable to allow anyone to opt out things like this.

ajay-b 2021-08-19 15:40:15 +0000 UTC [ - ]

How about over-18 too?

Minor49er 2021-08-19 16:44:09 +0000 UTC [ - ]

What, no concern for those who are exactly 18? :P

tyingq 2021-08-19 15:51:29 +0000 UTC [ - ]

I'm curious how they enforce rules here. It has to be pretty messy trying to only remove images of people from when they were < 18.

hanniabu 2021-08-19 15:42:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Especially over-18 that gradce pictures online from when they were under 18.

kazinator 2021-08-19 16:25:21 +0000 UTC [ - ]

So you have to be under 18, and prove it, to get help with this problem?

dleslie 2021-08-19 15:54:39 +0000 UTC [ - ]

It's a shame that this is only for minors.

poopypoopington 2021-08-19 16:37:30 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Would love this, am over 18

YeBanKo 2021-08-19 16:44:12 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Why limit it only to under-18s?

villgax 2021-08-19 16:12:00 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Wow, way to go Google! Shift the onus to the people who have not authorised you in the first place.

perihelions 2021-08-19 16:12:22 +0000 UTC [ - ]

All EU residents have this ability due to the GDPR. Here's what the request form looks like:

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-reques...

dheera 2021-08-19 16:25:25 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is neat, maybe if I need data to be removed I can just take a vacation to Europe and fill out the form from there, that makes me protected under EU law for the duration of my stay.

the-dude 2021-08-19 16:23:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Great timing.

intricatedetail 2021-08-19 16:20:02 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Why only under 18s?

Everyone should have a right to remove data from search. Most data Google indexed without consent.

distancelight 2021-08-19 15:59:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Over 18 are also children, just trapped in older bodies. https://imgflip.com/i/5k4b3w

unnouinceput 2021-08-19 16:06:20 +0000 UTC [ - ]

Hide, not delete!! Google will never truly delete anything, just hide it. And then when you're of age, guess what? You're fair game now.

FirstLvR 2021-08-19 16:05:53 +0000 UTC [ - ]

this leads to the very same question Rousseau and Maquiavelo made a long time ago:

are we inherently evil?

Google is asuming we are, thus making this tool in order to "help"

flowerlad 2021-08-19 16:39:38 +0000 UTC [ - ]

This is an improvement over their previous stance, which was that young people should change their name upon reaching adulthood [1]. This doesn't go far enough though, because just removing photos isn't enough.

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/7951269/Young-...