Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#311

Post by tripzilch »

danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine.

Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to the US.

We don't do the "jury of peers" thing (and I'm still not sure if this if really true or just stories/TV but, aren't juries specifically selected to have no background in the case matter, or legal matter?). Further, it's not unheard of that the judges and lawyers have technical knowledge for technical cases, or at least read up about it. Moreso than the EU-politicians that made the ruling, anyway, hence deferring to courts to sensibly applying the rulings. There seems to be a "you need to be rich in order to get justice" sentiment that I head Americans openly admit to as the status quo, and what I get from the news. This seems to be a bit less severe in the EU (at least in the Netherlands, that I know of). Certainly, expensive lawyers do increase your chances (unfortunately), but it's not a requirement, and if the law is in fact on your side, an affordable lawyer will do, too. And in addition to that, the "if the law is in fact on your side"-part is also easier to determine beforehand and carries a lot less risk, because of the differences between Common Law (US and most English-speaking countries) and Civil Law (rest of the world, basically) legal systems. Basically it means we codify most of our laws into law-books, using a rather standardised form of "legalese". Because of this, we don't do "precedence" like in Common Law systems. Instead we have "jurisprudence", which is a similar idea, but is used by judges as a guideline in cases where reality is ambiguous with respect to the codified law, so to speak.

Now, I didn't really study law, except for a single course (crash course into IP/tech law, part of my CS curriculum) a decade ago, and stuff I read on Wikipedia. So some of the above might not be 100% accurate, and the conclusions are obviously my opinion. But even then, that's at least some reasons to place some trust in our courts :)

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#312

Post by jakub-at »

lovich wrote: post #247
spullara wrote: post #183

It is odd that this is google's responsibility. Why isn't this directed at the original source?

Because having this information wasn't the problem. The problem now is that anyone anywhere can have access to all the data about you at any time. The scale of the ability has changed the behavior. The same issue comes up with cops tracking cars. It was never an issue for society for a cop to tail someone driving on public roads because they could only follow a few people given the resources necessary to tail someone…

^ THIS!

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#313

Post by fastball »

ivanhoe wrote: post #306
fastball wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to be forgotten can apply to anything where a private business has my data. Case-in-point: Facebook. Most people don't believe that when you ask a company like Facebook or Google to delete your account, they actually delete your data. Sure, you no longer have access to it, definitely, but most people seem to assume that it's not entirely gone. RTBF ensures that companies whom you provided information to delete…

Or if I'm, say, a convicted con artist I can hide that fact from my future victims, making any future crimes significantly easier...

I'm not trying to argue the respective pros/cons. OP just asked for an example of when RTBF would be a good thing excluding in the case of criminals.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#314

Post by mrtksn »

Guanjin wrote: post #309
mrtksn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark steal cookies, gets caught and serves his sentence in jail. Now Mark is out, looking for a job as a JavaScript developer but when Mark is Googled to check about his involvement in OS projects and personal portfolio before his Github profile the article on CNN from 5 years ago is displayed and apparently Mark is a cookie monster. Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again? Mark made a mistake but Is He really w…

I'm someone who once upon a time had a very bad trip after consuming some hallucinations, then freaked out and resisted when the cops attempted to arrest me. Local news heard the story and had a field day reporting on it. I served 3 months for it but now it will follow me around for the rest of my life. I'm not a bad person but one might get that perspective googling my name and there's essentially nothing I can ever…

Everyone makes mistakes, only some are punished and even less ends up as subject to the entertainment 'news' industry.

I hope you're doing well and I'm glad that you're not repeating your mistake.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#315

Post by jacquesm »

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…

Landlords and employers as a rule should not have access to your records. The only exception is employers that have a legitimate concern such as for example security companies or banks.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#316

Post by jacquesm »

guelo wrote: post #242
moomin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article it was a bit more nuanced than that. The one who had the right to be forgotten denied had a track record of misleading people about his conviction. The court (rightly, in my view) took this behaviour as evidence that his conviction remained relevant in a way that it was not for the other person (described as showing remorse). They didn’t just measure the length of the sentence. IMHO, this is a…

Is it up to Google's lawyers to do extensive investigations to find out that this guy had "a track record of misleading people"? What if Google decides they don't want to pay for that? Then all that nuance will be gone.

No, Google has the right to fight each such request in court.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#317

Post by jacquesm »

tallanvor wrote: post #150
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No one is getting murder or rape convictions removed from the record. Story about German murderers suing to get their names removed from a Wikipedia article about the victim. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0

But German courts ended up ruling against them.

It's almost as if judges aren't stupid.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#318

Post by danShumway »

tripzilch wrote: post #311
danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to the US. We don't do the "jury of peers" thing (and I'm still not sure if this if really true or just stories/TV but, aren't juries specifically selected to have no background in the case matter, or legal matter?). Further, it's not unheard of that the judges a…

> And in addition to that, the "if the law is in fact on your side"-part is also easier to determine beforehand

I do think that American courts have a problem with this, and I do wish Americans cared more about it. It's fairly standard to hear people over here talk about whether or not something is legal and say "Oh, but I'm not a lawyer, make sure you consult with one before making any decisions."

That always irritates me. Our laws ostensibly exist for the common people, not lawyers. It reminds me of the stereotypical olden churches where only a few people would get to read or understand the Bible. It feels dirty.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#319

Post by [deleted] »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #134
TomMarius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give me an example, please? I really can't think of a situation when a crime is so irrelevant that nobody cares (and thus the record isn't needed) and yet the record destroys lives (and that proves that people care, BTW) and thus must be deleted.

Low level dope fiend? Visiting a prostitute, or selling sex? I can think of a number of crimes, which are pretty much irrelevant for a character assessment.

[deleted]

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#320

Post by andromeduck »

djsumdog wrote: post #232
M2Ys4U wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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? That would be insane if that was how the law works. It's not how the law works.

But it is. Clearly in the article, both people wanted the record of their crime removed. This is censorship, pure and simple. This is why the EFF opposes the Right to be Forgotten. And the bigger questions: why the fuck is Google is soul source of record for things on the Internet. We need other viable search engines that are no subject to this kind of pressure.

I think the analogue would be that the library would have to remove it from the catalog and censor the librarians but still keep it on shelves because the original content isn't directly affected as the action is one step removed.
Post reply on HN