Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case • Hacker News Board

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#11

Post by rootlocus » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:22 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #2

Note that this case involved a criminal who wished to expunge his conviction from search results. > ‘The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person,’ said Jim Killock, executive director, ‘The Court will have to balance the public’s right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest.’ ‘The pub…

> It seems to me that there is an absolute right to access factual historical information.

I agree. However people are lazy and subjective and settle with bits of incomplete information either outdated, out of context, or even wrong.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#12

Post by lallysingh » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #9

JonnyNova wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate?

I would say that in the US we mostly consider right to free speech more important than the right to be forgotten.

A judge heard the case for two individuals. That's a pretty fair way to do it. Americans also believe in the rule of law, versus the rule of the powerful.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#13

Post by JonnyNova » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:23 PM UTC

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

Google is claiming to be acting in the interests of the public without the same mechanisms accessible to the public for moderating how this ability is used. Today Google can cite public interest, but it is just aligned and not acting purely on the public's interest. Like Facebook holding all user data forever, Google will definitely want to hold all data forever because someone it might make shareholders money.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#14

Post by onion2k » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #2

Note that this case involved a criminal who wished to expunge his conviction from search results. > ‘The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person,’ said Jim Killock, executive director, ‘The Court will have to balance the public’s right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest.’ ‘The pub…

It seems to me that there is an absolute right to access factual historical information.

This isn't a comment about the case, or the right to be forgotten, but something quite important nonetheless - Google's search results are not "factual historical information". They're an index of webpages that anyone and everyone can create, saying whatever they like. Google claims their engine ranks pages that more reputable higher than others, but without any transparency around that we can't know whether or not we agree with it's decisions.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#15

Post by danielfoster » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

If this is the case, then the government should pass laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of criminal record. Instead they've passed the puck (rather badly) to Google.

And it's not like Google is the only way to find things. Should newspapers be required to delete pages about an individual or destroy print copies? What about other search engines such as Yandex or Baidu? Of course anyone could just search on Google.com, too.

Mankind has done perfectly well without a "right to be forgotten" for hundreds of thousands of years.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#16

Post by mattnewton » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

I think that simply deleting references to information is a crude way to solve this problem. People who want to continue to bias against ex-convicts (like landlords and employers) will use background check services that aren’t regulated here, but the general public will be deprived easy access to information. This seems ripe for abuse, especially for government officials.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#17

Post by SirensOfTitan » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:27 PM UTC

A human is multifaceted. In previous decades, disagreeing with a person politically did not disqualify their friendship--today that is increasingly the case. People tend to flandarize real people (that is, reduce them to singular elements) nowadays in a way that makes me skeptical most people would use information on crimes in productive ways. A person should not have to pay for their mistakes years and years after they've paid the price (in this case, jail time).

As a generalization: the push against the right to be forgotten seems like a case of information bias. Does more information really help society make decisions? And even more importantly: how do we, as a society, process information like this in a way where it could be helpful (in the common case)?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#18

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #9

JonnyNova wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate?

I would say that in the US we mostly consider right to free speech more important than the right to be forgotten.

Keep in mind the idea of libel and slander exists in the US. I’d see this court decision as an extension of those ideas (materially true information that can be deindexed by the subject).

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#19

Post by comboy » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:28 PM UTC

It's absolutely insane what they are doing (EU). Should libraries remove newspapers with my name if I don't like what's written there about me? It's pure censorship. It all stems from the fact that society hasn't yet adjusted to the reality that not everything on the Internet is true. People share between themselves lots of false beliefs. The Internet is just another medium.

The problem is that if I put up a billboard that says John is a thief, they can find me and sue for defamation. If I do a website and use SEO, then it's not so easy, even though it serves similar purpose.

But that is how the world works now. We are able to send information to many people, anonymously, often in a targeted way. That's how politics work, that's how ads work, that's how HN works. The problem is not the information, the problem is trust. It's not easy to solve, but it's doable.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#20

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:29 PM UTC

zeveb wrote: post #2

Note that this case involved a criminal who wished to expunge his conviction from search results. > ‘The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person,’ said Jim Killock, executive director, ‘The Court will have to balance the public’s right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest.’ ‘The pub…

[deleted]