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

111–120 of 334 posts

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

#111

Post by yulaow »

freeone3000 wrote: post #101
nlowell wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Counter-example: What if someone accused you of raping her/him and that news remains online close to your name because it's a typical scandal and heavily reported but, when it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, there is no news reporting it because it's not a clicky article?

It happens frequently, not only with rape, but with any false accusation of a major crime... Typically there are a lot of articles about it but if you are proven innocent no main source reports it.

Now, would you want that information to remain online and to appear instantly anytime some HR look for your name after reading it in your cv?

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

#112

Post by IAmEveryone »

jasode wrote: post #85
oldcynic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem dangerous or journalistic at all here. In the UK at least the legal system is already aware and deals quite reasonably with the right to be forgotten. Has done for years. After a certain period a crime is considered spent and you can not be required to reveal it - except in some very limited circumstances. You'd have to reveal spent crimes if you want to join the police or become a magistrate for instanc…

>Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then? Since you're familiar with it, I'm curious how the following situations are handled... There was a famous rape case involving a Stanford student. His name is Brock Turner. If you search directly on keywords "Brock Turner"[1], the first results will be his rape conviction. I think it's logical to assume the Right To Be Forgotten wants the…

> What about searching for "The Stanford Rapist"[2].[..] If one searches images for keywords [...]

Those would not be removed under the Right to be Forgotten as defined by the original verdict. The reasoning is that the individual is harmed most by people explicitly googling their name (i. e. recruiters, business partners, family etc). If you come to the article from the other side of the issue, it's far less likely that you're in a position of power vis-a-vis that person.

> What if the victim writes a popular blogpost,

Such an article would once again be subject to the Right to be Forgotten.

> What takes precedence? The victim's free speech or the felon's censorship powers granted by Right To Be Forgotten?

That's far too general a question to ask, and appears to be phrased with a certain outcome in mind.

Neither right is absolute. It all depends on the specific situation. It requires exactly the sort of balancing the judicial system is build for.

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

#113

Post by mental1896 »

lightbyte wrote: post #30
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.

This is a very interesting point. The internet brings its users ever closer together and it's not beyond reason to imagine this closeness reaching a point where it is similar to the closeness experienced by ancient tribes. Today we would find it hard to imagine, say, seeing our neighbors naked but it was once very normal. So we've come to expect a certain amount of privacy.

A reduction in this privacy might precipitate a change in how people react to learning the private affairs of others. If everybody's legal history was laid bare, for instance, one might discover that getting in trouble is something quite a lot of people do--and in this light one might temper his reaction to learning of another's checkered past.

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

#114

Post by pitaj »

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…

Maybe we should stop locking people up for crimes, fine them instead (to be paid as reparations to the victims) and let their public reputation instead be their punishment.

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

#115

Post by jacquesm »

philipkglass wrote: post #65
jacquesm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Criminals can not erase their conviction. At best they will be able to wipe out your ability to find out about that conviction. If you want to know stuff like that you'll have to do a background check and not everybody gets to do background checks on everybody else for no particular reason. And that's a good thing.

According to what gressquel posted, they were doing a background check for a particular reason. If you meant "if you want to know stuff like that you'll have to do a background check that costs money ," then the "no particular reason" threshold for running a check depends strongly on the checker's financial resources. Whatever balance between right to privacy and right to knowledge is struck, it should have uniform e…

A google search is not a background check.

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

#116

Post by nitwit005 »

Europe wrote the law in such a way that Google effectively has to act like a court, even though that's obviously problematic, and it has no interest in doing so.

Sure, this seems a bit dubious, but they weren't exactly given a lot of guidance for handle these requests. I suspect they'd actually appreciate court rulings clarifying things.

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

#117

Post by [deleted] »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #112
jasode wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then? Since you're familiar with it, I'm curious how the following situations are handled... There was a famous rape case involving a Stanford student. His name is Brock Turner. If you search directly on keywords "Brock Turner"[1], the first results will be his rape conviction. I think it's logical to assume the Right To Be Forgotten wants the…

> What about searching for "The Stanford Rapist"[2].[..] If one searches images for keywords [...] Those would not be removed under the Right to be Forgotten as defined by the original verdict. The reasoning is that the individual is harmed most by people explicitly googling their name (i. e. recruiters, business partners, family etc). If you come to the article from the other side of the issue, it's far less likely…

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by dcow »

Good. The right to be forgotten is bullshit. That's not to say people don't need to learn to be a little more flexible, tolerant, and human about things people have done in the past, but deleting people's pasts is not the answer. Don't judge until you've walked someone's shoes (unless they're in the business of being public, then judge them but the right to be forgotten doesn't apply in remotely the same way in that case), howabout?

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

#119

Post by losteric »

yulaow wrote: post #111
freeone3000 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Counter-example: What if someone accused you of raping her/him and that news remains online close to your name because it's a typical scandal and heavily reported but, when it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, there is no news reporting it because it's not a clicky article? It happens frequently, not only with rape, but with any false accusation of a major crime... Typically there are a lot of articles abou…

Counter solution: Outlaw publishing suspect names until after they are convicted.

This model is used by other nations because regulating publications prevents both short and long-term harm while still preserving access to the truth.

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

#120

Post by will_brown »

tialaramex wrote: post #110
will_brown wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

First OP was saying “his bankruptcies” now you are bringing up the “Trump Organization”...none of the above declared bankruptcy, four casinos declared bankruptcy of which Trump was a shareholder.

Yes the casinos have his name on them, but that doesn’t make him CEO, or an employee, the sole owner of these casinos, or mean when the casinos filed bankruptcy they were his personal bankruptcies.

You are right they were not public companies, but neither are startups and we don’t go out of our way to attribute failures and bankruptcies of startups to investors/owners or members of the board.

Post reply on HN