Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic • Hacker News Board

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

#241

Post by lotu » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:13 AM UTC

Okay this quote at the top of the article irked me.

> Google has argued that it should be protected under an exception for journalism because it provides access to journalistic content. Even as a legal sleight of hand, the argument is quite a departure from Google’s customary efforts to present itself as a disinterested arbiter of information, a position that has become more untenable with time

Google was forced to become an arbiter of information by the very law in question. The EU could have set up a court system where you would sue the government and lawyer would argue against you why the information was in fact in the public interest and a judge would then decide the case. They didn’t do this probally because it would be a expensive and leave the government getting blamed when decisions are inevitably wrong/unpopular. Instead they forced Google to do this in a shout of confidence that Google would act in the public interest and not simply in the interest of resolving cases as quickly as cheaply as possible. It is easy to imagine a alternative world with a diffrent dominiat search engine that would allow information like corruption, histories of abuse and neglect to be hidden from the public.

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

#242

Post by dingo_bat » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:19 AM UTC

mynewtb wrote: post #167

losteric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?

Take them to court. Or learn to accept it.

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

#243

Post by dingo_bat » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:22 AM UTC

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…

Also think if you are the employer. If I'm hiring somebody (which is inherently a position of some trust), I'd like to know if they have a history of criminal behavior. I wouldn't want a murderer coding my next website.

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

#244

Post by ocdtrekkie » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:25 AM UTC

dingo_bat wrote: post #242

mynewtb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?

Take them to court. Or learn to accept it.

So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves? RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress. This is one of the reasons its so important.

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

#245

Post by lotu » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:27 AM UTC

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

What if grocery stores where required by law to evaluete people’s claims that articles about them should not be published and then remove those articles from the newpapers it sells (though newspapers sold directly to consumers were still unedited). You might presume that the grocery store (if it had the resources to handle this burden) would have to make journalistic decisions about if it sould allow or densely every single request. This is almost exactly like what Google is claiming.

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

#246

Post by dingo_bat » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:29 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #244

dingo_bat wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take them to court. Or learn to accept it.

So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves? RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress. This is one of the reasons its so important.

> So you would rather only the rich can afford to protect themselves?

Does Europe not have the concept of a court-appointed lawyer?

> RTBF makes it possible for ordinary citizens who can't afford fancy lawyers to fight big corporations to seek redress.

No it makes it possible for criminals to hide their criminality. To be very blunt, if I were an employer, I don't want to hire a murderer. I don't care if he/she was convicted and served their time. Once you have committed murder, I will not hire you. I will not deal with you in any way. Hiding/obfuscating true information from me is wrong. Criminality is public record. It should be easily accessible.

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

#247

Post by lordCarbonFiber » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:30 AM UTC

bringtheaction wrote: post #204

losteric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape. * If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. * If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty o…

> If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. “Just delete it”. Except have you ever personally been in the situation that you needed something removed? I have and: 1) You might not even have the password to every random account you created in the past, nor the e-mail addresses that you used when you created those profiles,…

It is that simple. Just the same as in real life. If you're "saying, likeing, sharing" things that "don't represent who you are" maybe you should take some time for introspection rather than demand the world to follow your narrative.

Information you, yourself, post publicly to the internet is public. Just the same as if you got up in Times Square and shouted it using a megaphone.

Information that is factually accurate that is posted publically on the internet isn't under your domain to censure. This falls heavily in the camp of "freedom of my speech not freedom of your speech" that seems so common here.

Information that is posted by others that isn't factual is already covered by libel and slander laws so doesn't fall under here.

The internet should be, and for the sake of truth has to be, immutable. The "right to be forgotten" is the right to break any concept of online reputation.

If you want to control your narrative, maybe don't post thoughtlessly and publicly.

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

#248

Post by lotu » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:34 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #115

philipkglass wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Obviously not, the point is if you are poor and want to know if someone has a history of scamming people do you want to not eat this week and be a formal background check, or run a quick google search and not worry about where to find food. They are diffrent products but they are used for the same purpose many times.

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

#249

Post by itronitron » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:35 AM UTC

curt15 wrote: post #216

bringtheaction wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content. “Just delete it”. Except have you ever personally been in the situation that you needed something removed? I have and: 1) You might not even have the password to every random account you created in the past, nor the e-mail addresses that you used when you created those profiles,…

>They do not respond to DMCA notices. But Google does cooperate with DMCA. The difference there is that that content deemed in violation of copyright is actually illegal for anyone to distribute; legal responsibility extends all the way to the website owner. Unless content falling under "right to be forgotten" is ruled privileged and not legal for public distribution, any artificial roadblocks to their discovery will…

so copyright everything you post online and then invoke DMCA when it shows up in search results?

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

#250

Post by itronitron » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 4:40 AM UTC

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…

Platform owners are constantly changing things, removing content, and revising their TOS to take away any and all control from individuals. Is there any doubt as to how this is going to end?