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

101–110 of 334 posts

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

#101

Post by freeone3000 »

nlowell wrote: post #80
losteric wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

The right to be forgotten is meant to protect individuals' privacy. You sound as if you believe that a world in which all knowledge was public forever would be a better world. I disagree with this and think that we have to weigh it with individual privacy and safety. Not to mention the fact that these search engines are not 100% accurate, so it would be beneficial at least to allow people to remove inaccurate sources…

You're arguing that the knowledge being public is somehow different from truth. I disagree with this - facts must be available. Google must be a source of information. Search engines are the interface to the web - removing information from a search engine is tantamount to erasing it from memory. The idea that people have the right to hide their pasts is a ridiculous assertion - it goes against freedom of speech, it goes against freedom of the press in the most literal sense, and it benefits people who truly did bad things the most.

If I made an offensive tweet in 2007, I'd stand by it, and assert that it's my tweet but I'm also a different person. Personal integrity would demand no less. Hiding behind a "privacy" law to conceal something you shouted from the rooftops in 2007 is a disingenuous position to take.

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

#102

Post by vogre »

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:/…

Why the team in google has right to decide whether someone's privacy is worth more or less than some public interest?

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

#103

Post by kuschku »

danShumway wrote: post #72
kuschku wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Should the government be able to decide what facts are irrelevant to the public, or too harmful to allow the public to know? You don't think that sets a dangerous precedent for abuse?

The legislative has made laws which the courts have interpreted for this task since time immortal, and the legislative will make laws which the courts interpret for this task until our civilization ends.

So, yes, they should. Without this, no rehabilitation is ever possible, every childhood mistake will affect you in your job.

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

#104

Post by freeone3000 »

amelius wrote: post #94
megaman22 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's almost exactly the opposite of what I'm arguing. I'd argue that previously, all of this information was on file, and accessible, and relatively well-known. Google delisting it is the weird, anomalous development.

> all of this information was on file, and accessible, and relatively well-known But there is a big difference between having information at your fingertips in a searchable database, and having to go to a library and do the searching manually. Perhaps google could provide the information after the user solved 1000 captchas :)

So if my local newspaper digitized their archive, they'd suddenly be in violation of user's privacy?

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

#105

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

These "right to be forgotten" laws are already being abused:

* German murderers sue for Wikipedia to remove their names from the page about their victim. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0

* Russian oligarch sues Google and Yandex for linking to investigation about investigations of him and his businesses. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/putins-personal-chef-sue...

* A doctor sues to remove negative patient reviews. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10833894/Polit...

These laws will tip the balance of information away from the people and towards the wealthy who will have the means to conduct extensive background checks/research.

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

#107

Post by freeone3000 »

redler wrote: post #88
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…

As someone else mentioned on this thread, there's little distinction in search engine results between something that happened yesterday and something that happened 20 years ago. We now have the phenomenon of information no longer "aging". We've always had "news" to tell us what's, well, new. But over time that information would age. It would become harder to recall, and take more work to retrieve. A story on the even…

As someone whose first memories start after computers existed:

This is ridiculous. People need to fix themselves. They need to adjust their values judgements, understand the purpose of 'last modified time', and adapt to the new world.

Computers aren't going to become better at forgetting because a legislature or a court has decided they should.

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

#108

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#109

Post by intralizee »

I think Google should consider how human-error prône we are and how society suffers because of it. Everyone is slowly becoming dehumanized towards others by errors and I’ve witnessed first hand how errors of others will ruin a person; if they’re not clever enough to conquer the situation. Google should put more resources into improving Human Resources and Law before getting all uptight about removing what could be an error for a person but is impossible to prove; with the lacking resources of today. Most cases are hearsay of others and where a minoriy suffering by errors of the majority; the minority has no real evidence to work it out. A person will likely crumble in bad situations, unless educated in law and defense.

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

#110

Post by tialaramex »

will_brown wrote: post #83
sumeno wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you attribute the recent Toys R Us bankruptcy to individual owners? I wouldn't attribute it to the owners of individual stores, but the CEO? Absolutely > Or if your favorite startup goes under and has to declare bankruptcy to shield itself from creditors before the company dissolves would you start attributing bankruptcy to individual employees with equity/stock options? Trump wasn't an individual employee wi…

It should be noted im not sticking up for Trump, just addressing the idea of attributing a company bankruptcy to company owners as if they personally filed bankruptcy, as done by OP. Still if you want to attribute the bankruptcies of companies to Trump personally because he was CEO...post a link, because I don’t think Trump was an employee of these companies at all, much less responsible for day to day operations of…

The reason it's called the "Trump Organisation" is because it's unusual in that Trump literally just owns it. It's not a bunch of public companies with Trump happening to have some job like "Chief Executive" or "Chairman", it's personally owned outright by Donald J Trump (in a few cases the companies are co-owned, but mostly it's just Trump).
Post reply on HN