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

21–30 of 334 posts

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

#21

Post by Heliosmaster »

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently.

Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary.

A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw.

It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by going to jail, and yet they keep paying by having the news of their mistake be very prominent.

What is the right course of action, in this case?

Note that the difference between traditional newspapers is their general availability. Now the entire history is just a few clicks away, whereas with paper you need to go look for it specifically to find it, so it's a LOT less damaging.

What does HN think about this?

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

#22

Post by jbigelow76 »

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…

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten?

Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone should be doing proper due diligence.

Google CANNOT become our only source of truth.

Edit: grammar.

Edit 2: My point is about the perception of Google as the only relevance source of information for society. Not a value judgement on the concept of a "right to be forgotten" from any source or surfacer of information.

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

#23

Post by Heliosmaster »

baldfat wrote: post #15

> ‘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' st…

A search engine != the internet.

It should not be removed from the internet, but it should be removed from google. It's not the same thing as dealing with paper newspaper. One you have to go an explicitly look for the information and browse through them to get it (and still it can escape your gaze). With google you just need to type name and surname, and everything is at your fingertips.

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

#24

Post by megaman22 »

ballenf wrote: post #17
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?

I mean, it's in the police blotter that's published in the newspaper. Assuming you still have a local newspaper, that is.

I'm not specifically aware of whether this is the case, but I would hope that the results of deliberations by criminal courts is public information.

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

#25

Post by hayksaakian »

baldfat wrote: post #15

> ‘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' st…

> if there are factually wrong then absolutely they should have the ability to have it removed.

Who is responsible for verifying facts before they're allowed to be removed from Google?

If I publish an online review saying "baldfat stole money from me, don't work with him" is Google supposed to be a private investigator and verify my claims?

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

#26

Post by iamdave »

lightbyte wrote: post #14

"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?

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?

Funny (read: sad) that you should mention this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/15...

I'm not posting this to suggest it's a harbinger of things to come or anything like that, but...the events here are just too ironic to not be the result of us somehow stumbling into an alternate dimension (I'm not above ruling out CERN as a possible culprit)

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

#27

Post by jacquesm »

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…

There is a huge gulf between what a public person can do under the right to be forgotten and what a private individual that is not otherwise notable can do.

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

#28

Post by notatoad »

fenwick67 wrote: post #4

> In its defense, Google has argued that it should be protected under an exception for journalism because it provides access to journalistic content This is like saying a grocery store should be exempt because it sells newspapers

>This is like saying a grocery store should be exempt because it sells newspapers

well, yes. or are you saying a grocery store should have to read every article in every newspaper they sell to ensure it doesn't contain information that legally should be forgotten?

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

#29

Post by GunlogAlm »

skylark wrote: post #18
komali2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

Seems sensible to me.

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

#30

Post by lightbyte »

Heliosmaster wrote: post #21

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently. Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary. A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by…

It sounds like the actual problem is

>This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw.

Hiding information from people sounds like a bandaid to the issue of people being overly judgemental. Maybe we need to be more accepting to rehabilitation.

Post reply on HN