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

#261

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:14 AM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #255

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?

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, tha…

> The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors.

RBTF, maybe, but how is the DMCA this way? Certainly not the takedown notice/counternotice provision, which doesn't create new liability, only a special shield from any pre-existing liability.

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

#262

Post by sseth » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:15 AM UTC

The "right to be forgotten" is always going to be fraught. We are talking of a balance between competing rights of freedom of speech and privacy, and usually such finely balanced decisions are what the judicial system is for.

But large platforms like Google and Facebook have become like "countries" in themselves. People are earning their livelihoods, finding their friends and loved ones, even committing crimes using these platforms. I think these companies are being forced to build due process procedures so people have recourse, not just for right to be forgotten, but also for other cases. And this is being compounded by the use of AI algorithms which work in mysterious ways even to their creators - an impersonal algorithm making decisions which may destroy someone's life, or make someone a millionaire.

I wonder for example if the recent youtube attack could have been avoided if the shooter had an independent forum where she could ask for explanation and perhaps challenge the change in the ads policy which hurt her livelihood. Nothing justifies violence, but we can learn lessons for the future.

We normally do not ask corporations to do such things, but for these mega-internet giants maybe the normal rules are not enough. Perhaps as a start, these companies should setup an ombudsman who can be approached when normal corporate avenues fail.

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

#263

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:25 AM UTC

tannhauser23 wrote: post #150

losteric wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is not a universally adopted solution, and for good reason. Publishing the suspect's name/face as well as the details of the alleged crime encourages witnesses to come forward. Plus, from a free speech perspective, it seems crazy to criminalize the publishing of true information, especially when it directly relates to public safety and the government's exercise of its police powers.

[deleted]

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

#264

Post by petre » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:30 AM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #172

tannhauser23 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a universally adopted solution, and for good reason. Publishing the suspect's name/face as well as the details of the alleged crime encourages witnesses to come forward. Plus, from a free speech perspective, it seems crazy to criminalize the publishing of true information, especially when it directly relates to public safety and the government's exercise of its police powers.

Saying investigators are interested in the details surrounding individuals at the time of a crime (and presenting those individuals, not even as suspects, but merely as 'persons for which additional information is desired') is a truthful and accurate statement and does not assert any actual accusation of guilt. As such a fact it should be part of the public record regarding such a matter.

Society will treat you as a convicted criminal even if you're a suspect.

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

#265

Post by tscs37 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 6:32 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…

The easy solution, and this is what a lot of newspapers in Germany do, atleast for most stories, is to not use the real name or only a shorted (ie, Albert E. or Qubert T. instead of Albert Einstein).

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

#266

Post by gandutraveler » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:01 AM UTC

If the information exists in public domain and especially reported by news agencies then why should this information be deleted. Why should it only apply to Google and not other news agencies? EU should have more claroty on the law and make Google delete it only if it applies to the entire internet.

Right to be forgotten should only apply to information provided by user wanting to be forgotten. For all other cases, we should ask the court to allow it to be forgotten from internet and not just google.

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

#267

Post by sakuronto » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:36 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #52

lightbyte wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because i…

Isn't this eerily close to a right to be forgiven, which is not at all a right? If you make a stupid mistake when you're young, then what's wrong with me judging you for the rest of your life? The Government shouldn't hide the knowledge from me because they think I ought to give you another chance, that should be up to me to decide.

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

#268

Post by sakuronto » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:39 AM UTC

anoncoward7780 wrote: post #228

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…

spoken like a person with no history. Imagine youre in college and everyone sees you according to the construct of who you "appeared" in grammar school, or for that matter High school. It's like that. You should have the right to have to dumb stuff you did in college,or high school to not follow you forever. If you're not an adult already (30+ years)then you'll understand this eventually. We see the world and others…

Or maybe you should just own it and put those things behind you with a laugh. This gives the government way too much power over who knows what, the ability to erase things as they see fit, and all that so that you can avoid a bit of embarassment, to me, sounds ridiculous.

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

#269

Post by d6de964 » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 7:52 AM UTC

guelo wrote: post #98

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?

> how did this become a thing? Google is a foreign corporation to Europeans so it sounds scarier and more sinister to the general public. Politicians take advantage of that to demagogue so they pass harsh laws to show that they are doing something against the scary foreigners.

It's one of the most recognizable tech companies by far (in par with Microsoft and Facebook). If Google doesn't comply with EU's privacy protection laws for Europeans I don't see a reason why it or its parent company can't be fined there. In a way that compensates the EU citizens for all their private information gathered, analyzed and sold.

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

#270

Post by voidr » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 8:10 AM UTC

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?

Those records are all available in a publicly accessible registry maintained by the goverment.

> Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten?

You have the sexual offender registry for those things.

> Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record?

No, it's about people's mind not being immutable. I used to believe in Santa ~25 years ago, if I would have made a viral tweet about it back then, should I be barred from joining a scientific community today?

Even Eric Schmidt said that young people should get a reset button once they become of age.

My rule of thumb is that: the authorities and law enforcement should have monopoly over maintaining information that should stick with you forever, not some private company that is even more unaccountable than the government.