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

251–260 of 334 posts

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

#251

Post by itronitron »

nradov wrote: post #224
astura wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a very dangerous road to go down. My parents abused me, however, they were never convicted of a crime in a court of law because nobody ever reported them. The statue of limitations has almost certainly passed by now so they are unable to be convicted. Are you suggesting it should be illegal for me to say that my parents abused me? Same with Bill Cosby's accusers, the statue of limitations has passed on all…

I think losteric was proposing a confidentiality rule that would only apply to the government , not to private citizens.

and government employees never reveal high-interest confidential information /s

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

#252

Post by ocdtrekkie »

dingo_bat wrote: post #246
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Court appointed lawyers are for criminal cases, not civil ones. This is pretty common across legal systems, AFAIK.

RTBF does not protect murderers, this is a fundamental lack of knowledge of the law and its clearly marked boundaries.

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

#253

Post by aspaceman »

dingo_bat wrote: post #246
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

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

Not sure you understand how court-appointed attorneys work. First off, you can't use one to sue someone else since you can only get a court-appointed attorney when you're being charged in a criminal suit.

Second, court-appointed attorneys suck. They are underpaid, overworked, and unable to properly do their jobs as is.

Requiring legal action would indeed create a scenario where only the rich bring such cases to trial.

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

#254

Post by thisiszilff »

skybrian wrote: post #90
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…

I think this is much like the decision made by a journalist whether to publish. Journalists sometimes talk about the public's "right to know". This directly contracts an individual's "right to privacy," so the journalist has to weigh balancing interests and make a decision. (If they screw up, the courts will review it, though the damage is done.) Years later, it's not unreasonable for some other person to weigh these…

This is a very good way of describing the problem. Journalists are humans that search out salient news and stories and work on bringing it before the public. There (should be) professional ethics in their work that inform these choices. Google, meanwhile, just throws up whatever it finds. It's doubtful a journalist would ever take interest in the odd smattering of risqué/questionable moments of your neighbor, but Google's more than happy to serve them all up at your request.

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

#255

Post by greglindahl »

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?

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor.

Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors.

By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, that's 100% legal thanks to the First Amendment, as long as the photographer agrees. Eric has no part. Attacking search engines on behalf of Eric, in the US, not so cool. Europe doesn't have free speech, so, no problem.

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

#256

Post by kevsim »

I find it strange that the beef is with Google and not with the sites Google points at. Even if Google removes these search results, the articles are out there, probably linked from some other articles on the same newspaper's site, etc. This belief that removing from Google somehow makes it go away is odd.

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

#257

Post by gaius »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #138
bussierem wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't agree that this will protect anyone, or that they need to be protected in the first place. This is just hiding the problem that someone would judge you for whatever the content is. You can't deny that the advent of social media has brought about a MUCH bigger problem of people getting fired, judged, or their lives ruined by stupid mistakes, posts online of a single comment they made, etc. These things aren't…

By that same token, it's much easier to discover who the real idiots, bigots, assholes, etc. are, and then to apply appropriate social sanctions. It may suck for some people, but if we keep these people visible, then eventually maybe there will be fewer of them.

real idiots, bigots, assholes, etc

One tweet taken out of context we’ve seen many examples of is enough to ignite an epic shitstorm. No. You’re just proposing further destruction of public discourse and civility.

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

#258

Post by needToSay »

paulie_a wrote: post #89
gaius wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? Your criminal record is expunged after a time. This is about whether Google is above the law of the land.

No it isn't

There more than one country in the world you xenophobe

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

#259

Post by bringtheaction »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #247
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,…

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 accurat…

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

I am not posting thoughtlessly. What I am saying is that there is just a million ways that anything can be interpreted in the future that you have no way of foreseeing.

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

#260

Post by petre »

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #240
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?

Well maybe Eric shouldn't have "driven drunk"? Im not sure why search providers should be held accountable for protecting the carefully curated (false) reputations of individuals. All of the "right to be forgotten" arguments seem to devolve to "people shouldn't be able to know any data points that would negatively effect my social standings".

What if someone posts libelous information about Eric and uses SEO to make it show up on page 1 of Google's search results?
Post reply on HN