The policing of online information

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:38 am

I have a rather trivial question raised in an idle moment.

Elizabeth TenHouten appeared on British television recently and, puzzled, I searched on her name.

The information available is beyond merely minuscule, I got the impression that a team of lawyers must have sent desist orders to every website that has ever mentioned her without explicit permission. It is astonishing how little biographical information can be seen. Maybe it's a Google UK privacy order, who knows.

Are there other names like this? Is it a privacy issue?

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:53 am

Or, perhaps, nobody cares.

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:56 am

I did consider that and no, I think it's wrong. There's a scoured feel to the Internet search, the ground has been raked.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:10 pm

First I've ever heard of her. Obviously not an attention seeker.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:37 pm

Shes an actress, married to some guy called Tito and gives beauty tips. Whatever that means it sounds boring to me.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:56 pm

I got to page 5 on Google with stuff coming from America and Australia.....at least, didn't go any further.

Then I did the same for me, there are 8 of me on Facebook......none of them me, I did Google my full name.

Anyway to cut it short, with my full first and second name didn't bring back anything past page 2 and only a couple that were relevant.

I haven't put any security orders in place.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:59 pm

LarsMac;1512229 wrote: Or, perhaps, nobody cares.

I'd go with that one.

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:00 pm

Bruv;1512235 wrote: I got to page 5 on Google with stuff coming from America and Australia.....at least, didn't go any further.

From what I saw, absolutely none of those links are remotely biographical. They appeared mainly to be commercial.

magentaflame;1512234 wrote: [...] married to some guy called Tito [...]He's spectacularly famous with more money than Midas. He spent $20m on a week's holiday at the International Space Station and he's now trying for a place on the first manned Mars lander.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:35 pm

Next thing you know Katsung will be making posts about how the Feds are censoring Spot's Google - although it doesn't appear to be affecting anyone else's. I put in the name & was flooded with information on there - although I can't say I've ever heard of her. But then, I've never heard of most so called celebs. I make it a point to disregard them as much as possible.

Post by **spot** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:25 am

FourPart;1512314 wrote: I put in the name & was flooded with information on there - although I can't say I've ever heard of her. But then, I've never heard of most so called celebs.I'd not count her as a "celeb" as you choose to put it, she seems rather more of a recluse with a commercial outlet who allows it to be known that she attended two charity events.

However, perhaps you're right and you've googled biographical information where I failed. You could demonstrate your success by posting, for example, a link to any webpage showing her year and place of birth. That's biographical, it's what Wikipedia would normally have in the top right info-box for all biographical pages. The very fact that she has no Wikipedia entry suggests I'm right though.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:39 pm

interesting. You are describing something very close to part of my reaction to people faking their English: Same sense of what should be, not being there. Given the situation it isn't surprising that there isn't any of the other part - what is there not being quite right.