Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 334 posts

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#11

Post by landryraccoon »

rileymat2 wrote: post #6
darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

But it might be safer to start with the right to be forgotten then start outlining exceptions to that, instead of the other way around.

Why is forgetting the default instead of remembering? You assume that it's better for all of us if we default forget, but that's probably not how you treat your own information, or what you know about others. Isn't more transparency a good thing? Do the government, public figures, elected figures, law enforcement, your doctor and those who provide you medical care have the right to force you to forget everything about them?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#12

Post by kuschku »

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

> Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record?

The right to be forgotten only extends to people that are not public personalities, and only to facts that either are invalid (with proof), or irrelevant, but potentially harmful (e.g. you might argue that a ban you received on a minecraft server when you were 14yo, but which shows up as first result for your name on Google, would negatively impress employers, without having factual relevance).

The right to be forgotten has specifically exemptions for all the cases you mentioned.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#13

Post by darawk »

komali2 wrote: post #8
darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

As I recall from "The man who spent 100,000$ to remove himself from google," the "right to be forgotten" specifically targets falsehoods and lies. So no, Trump's bankruptcies won't be forgotten in this system, but a false accusation of child molestation can be.

But these guys were convicted of these crimes, no? That makes this information that's trying to be removed in this case pretty clearly not a lie. Unless i'm missing something here.

I think i'm cautiously in favor of the standard you propose though, if that is indeed the standard.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#14

Post by lightbyte »

"Right to be forgotten" just sounds so ridiculous to me, how did this become a thing? Are people going to want to burn the history books at their local library next because it contains some information they don't like reminding people of?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#15

Post by baldfat »

> ‘right to be forgotten’

I really think that hiding facts is a mistake. Yes someone made a bad mistake why is it their right to have it removed from the internet? Now if there are factually wrong then absolutely they should have the ability to have it removed.

Things can legally be removed from a person's record like crimes committed by minors but if someone's life was impacted are we going to remove the victims' story for the sake of the offenders?

Imagine going to the library to read the old news papers and have excerpts redacted and cut out. To me that is what people are trying to do.

This is changing our history like the horrible biographies of the 19th and early 20th century where the hero of the biography was perfect and a superhero due to moral perfectionism, but now it is seeked after by individual's regardless to their poor choices and actions.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#16

Post by nraynaud »

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

It is not wiped from the historical record. It is about not finding the article at the top if you search the name of the person.

The justice system has a perfectly fine systems for storing and expunging criminal records over time, and you can still find the article if you specifically google the event.

Child molester is probably the worst example, since they have specific lists, exclusions zones, and warning system attached to their presence, nobody should rely on google to find if their new teacher is a child molester.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#17

Post by ballenf »

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

Seems like you're almost asking about others' right to know about a person's past crimes. So I'll ask it:

Should I be able to google my children's friends' parents before I let them spend the night over there? I use this case because it wouldn't provide the basis of legal background check and presumably google would be my only source of info. Or does the right to be forgotten not apply to child abuse crimes?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#18

Post by skylark »

komali2 wrote: post #8
darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

As I recall from "The man who spent 100,000$ to remove himself from google," the "right to be forgotten" specifically targets falsehoods and lies. So no, Trump's bankruptcies won't be forgotten in this system, but a false accusation of child molestation can be.

I think the "right to be forgotten" law has larger scope than that actually, although I'm definitely not a lawyer.

> After a request is filled, their removals team reviews the request, weighing "the individual's right to privacy against the public's right to know", deciding if the website is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#19

Post by briandear »

So this is a right for Google to not show unflattering results but not about a publishers right to publish unfavorable content?

Is this not blaming the card catalog for the content of a book?

If the information is true, than how can we argue it should be hidden? If it is false, then that’s a libel case against the publisher of the false information — not the indexer.

If someone wants to be forgotten, they should be addressing the publisher, not the indexer.

The precedent of removing factual information from discovery is a dangerous one. It would seem like existing libel laws ought to cover cases where false information persists. Should a newspaper delete old content just because “people change?” That’s just crazy.

Post reply on HN