31–40 of 42 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right to be forgotten is not a global right. OP could be from a country where courts have not made that ruling.
I'm speaking more to the ethics than the legal technicalities.
Honestly, I don't understand how anybody can honestly think that there can or should be a "right to be forgotten." These laws are an abomination of freedom of information and are incredibly naive.
Let me just publish articles full of libel and lies claiming you distribute child porn in a country without libel laws. Let’s see what you do when the first result in Google for your name is such lies. Or when things you did in your childhood are all Google results about you, and might make you fail to get a job. The whole point of the Right to be Forgotten is to solve such issues which can’t be solved otherwise.
Anyway, assuming that there is, that country had made a conscious choice that in its jurisdiction, this is not a thing that they wish to suppress, for whatever reason. If you live in such a country and are unhappy about it, you can either work through its political system to change the law, or leave for a different country.
If you're already in a different country, you can sue for libel in that country, since that's where the damage (to your reputation) occurred.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/entries/8f2dd88f-db8a-46...
That's really interesting that they publish that information. The top of the list is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6965657.stm ; presumably any of the people mentioned, including in the comments, might be responsible for the right-to-be-forgotten request to Google. What's more curious, to me, is that several of the BBC's list are references to a series of articles on 3 students, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ed…
I think some of us that have had the foresight to prevent such things as in the OP from ever possibly being an issue in our lives might forget the rational decisions made in ignorance or a moment of exuberance (i.e haste).
Still, the internet is global and laws are regional, so ineffective legislation is a waste of time.
[Not going to get into P2P tech that is still un-censorable]
Honestly, I don't understand how anybody can honestly think that there can or should be a "right to be forgotten." These laws are an abomination of freedom of information and are incredibly naive.
Before the Internet, people eventually forgot what mistakes you made in the past. If there were records, not everyone had access to them and they eventually expired. Don't you see the problem when every mistake you ever made, or even wrongfully made accusations against you, can be found by anyone, indefinitely, by simply entering your name into a search engine? Let's say there is a nude picture of you on the Internet…
This effectively kills freedom of speech.
I'd rather have some embarrassing photos around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before the Internet, people eventually forgot what mistakes you made in the past. If there were records, not everyone had access to them and they eventually expired. Don't you see the problem when every mistake you ever made, or even wrongfully made accusations against you, can be found by anyone, indefinitely, by simply entering your name into a search engine? Let's say there is a nude picture of you on the Internet…
It also allows every critical statement about anyone to be erased from the internet. This effectively kills freedom of speech. I'd rather have some embarrassing photos around.
I'd rather lose some accountability of past critical statements.
Honestly, I don't understand how anybody can honestly think that there can or should be a "right to be forgotten." These laws are an abomination of freedom of information and are incredibly naive.
Before the Internet, people eventually forgot what mistakes you made in the past. If there were records, not everyone had access to them and they eventually expired. Don't you see the problem when every mistake you ever made, or even wrongfully made accusations against you, can be found by anyone, indefinitely, by simply entering your name into a search engine? Let's say there is a nude picture of you on the Internet…
Do you live with goldfish?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me just publish articles full of libel and lies claiming you distribute child porn in a country without libel laws. Let’s see what you do when the first result in Google for your name is such lies. Or when things you did in your childhood are all Google results about you, and might make you fail to get a job. The whole point of the Right to be Forgotten is to solve such issues which can’t be solved otherwise.
There are already libel laws to address lies much more thoroughly than making Google's job harder. So-called right to be forgotten laws are as futile as DRM. I believe culturally we will adapt to the availability of this information. We can change our opinions about whether evidence of poor choices a long time ago means a candidate would be a poor hire. But the information still being available allows us to make more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really interesting that they publish that information. The top of the list is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6965657.stm ; presumably any of the people mentioned, including in the comments, might be responsible for the right-to-be-forgotten request to Google. What's more curious, to me, is that several of the BBC's list are references to a series of articles on 3 students, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ed…
I'm all for the freedom of speech in the American sense of the phrase (probably in the extreme considering many of the comments here ). However, I don't think that means we should always exercise that right; this is where I think norms shine. I'm actually uncomfortable with you collating/ summarizing this data such as you have (though I'd never want to try and legally prevent it; it's your choice). I think some of us…
I hesitated, the BBC page will be an ocean of views compared to the puddle of view this thread gets ... I didn't follow the details for other posts, concerning crimes. The cited post looks like it was probably to hide what's essentially normal student behaviours (though one can't be sure). At least there's nothing intrinsic that seems worthy of censoring.
What it does shine a light on for me is how very bland information about us that we share might become a source of regret later in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me just publish articles full of libel and lies claiming you distribute child porn in a country without libel laws. Let’s see what you do when the first result in Google for your name is such lies. Or when things you did in your childhood are all Google results about you, and might make you fail to get a job. The whole point of the Right to be Forgotten is to solve such issues which can’t be solved otherwise.
Is there a country without libel laws? Anyway, assuming that there is, that country had made a conscious choice that in its jurisdiction, this is not a thing that they wish to suppress, for whatever reason. If you live in such a country and are unhappy about it, you can either work through its political system to change the law, or leave for a different country. If you're already in a different country, you can sue f…
Yet, if I put up something that’s legal under German law but illegal under US law onto my website, my entire hoster is threatened by the US govt. unless they remove my presence.
The right to be forgotten only gives the EU citizen the power that US citizen already have: to apply their laws globally (despite only in very limited amounts and with careful interpretation – which can’t be said of the US laws)