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

371–380 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#371

Post by mirimir »

michaelmrose wrote: post #362
mirimir wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. And thanks for confirming my supposition. It's rare to see this mentioned in coverage of the issue. For reasons that are understandable, I guess. The EU has pressured Google to censor its results globally, as I recall. But Google has prevailed on that, at least. So far, anyway.

Further if Europe can ask for info to be censored what happens when 100 other nations ask the same for their own reasons. Will the search index be composed only of data that is acceptable to all parties?

Yes, that is a foreseeable outcome.

But Google would probably say "no" to many of them.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#372

Post by TomMarius »

kafquaesque wrote: post #337
Xylakant wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employers can already request that potential employees hand in a certificate from the authorities that they have no relevant convictions in Germany. (Führungszeugnis) All convictions past a statutory limit are not listed. There’s an extended version for especially sensitive positions (working with children, security sensitive positions,...) that lists convictions that are no longer part of the normal official limit.…

I’m convinced this guy is a troll. He continues to state an opinion in spite of having people give him information that disproves what he is saying.

Have you ever heard of contracting?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#373

Post by michaelmrose »

jacquesm wrote: post #368
michaelmrose wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically an impossible burden to bear. If everyone who had anything whatsoever bad about them on the internet decided that the tiny burden of sending a letter was a worthy use of time then fighting the 1/10 which were the most dubious would ruin google financially. This is like a network where you can cause a network to waste a GB of data by sending a KB of data. The only reasonable response in that situatio…

Excellent, the law works as intended.

You want anyone to be able to silence anyone via a letter?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#374

Post by mirimir »

kenbaylor wrote: post #361
mirimir wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, Google only blocks this stuff for searches from the EU. So all you need is a VPN with a non-EU IP address, and you can find whatever. Right?

You are correct, and they will likely change that or face heavy fines, now that they have lost this case.

Really, over this one little case?

That would suck.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#375

Post by __33__ »

bduerst wrote: post #132
jasode wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a society, we approve of jail being the mechanism to "forgive" a person's crime. That's not really true. Serving prison time is neither a way to "forgive" nor a way to "pay debt back to society" . Those are just common phrases some people use. If felons were truly forgiven , they would have their right to vote restored. They wouldn't be denied a passport to travel abroad or denied a firearms license. Convicted fe…

Incarceration serves three purposes: 1. Removal of social offender from society 2. Rehabilitation of non-conforming individuals 3. Punishment enough to deter future offenders There's a tangental argument about whether or not incarceration achieves these goals, but the social stigma from being incarcerated isn't the point of any of these goals, and is instead just a cultural byproduct.

4. retribution One could see it as the motivation for a right to be forgotten: You have already been punished by law.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#376

Post by paganel »

sheepz wrote: post #55
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…

This a perfectly bad example, because your example makes the reader's intuition pump in a certain way. Consider the alternative story where Mark is a wife beater. Would still come to the same conclusion? Or does it say something about Mark's character or his possible future behavior?

> Consider the alternative story where Mark is a wife beater

An unemployed and bitter wife-beater is a much greater risk of continuing beating his wife (and possibly kids) compared to a wife-beater who is employed. Also, and it pains me to say this, there is a really low correlation between wife-beaters and professional performance, and in today's world where most everything is oriented on results that matters. Case in point: John Lennon was a wife-better but he was also a very good singer and song-writer, so people focused more on his music talents than on his wife-kicking abilities. And his case is not the only one. Not saying that it was the right thing to ignore his private life when judging him, just mentioning the facts.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#377

Post by CryptoPunk »

TomMarius wrote: post #90
sorokod wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I feel like this 'right to be forgotten' hurts my safety" A few years ago you had no such facility at all - how did you manage?

I was feeling less safe, that has improved. Why go back in time?

The "right to be forgotten" is the natural end-game in the positive rights charade.

Now you have a right to dictate what will be in someone else's mind.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#378

Post by yuhong »

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 don't like either search engine right to be forgotten or anti-discrimination laws. Does the problem really need to be solved?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#379

Post by simion314 »

smsm42 wrote: post #351
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…

Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. It's not a technological problem. It may be a societal problem (e.g. we are supposed to forgive and forget, but instead we obsess over a mistake somebody made 30 years ago) but I don't see how it is a t…

you can be affected even if you did nothing illegal, say you were young and stupid and you were in some camp X(like a political party, or some gaming group, or some sect), then for some reason this things happen:

- the fact you were member of X and you done some comments gets a good Page Rank

- X becomes very unpopular, people that believed in X ideology are seen as idiots,racists,violent

- you got older and smarter and you realized your mistake

- you made some other good things during your life, like maybe won chess tournaments, volunteered,donated to charities,raise children

And the problem will be that your mistake will be on the top results on web search wile your good stuff will probably not be online or if it is will be on 3rd or 4rd web search page(the even where you won the chess competition has a bad page rank)

Many issues you can say are a society problem, like a murder, you can argue that the society is at fault for creating them, allowing guns, drogs, bad education.

So for this problem I think there should be some technical solution for affecting the page rank of some pages on Google or other searches in some conditions, and now we need to find some fair conditions when this should happen, maybe google could fix the algorithm to not give such a big page rank to this kind of stories in general.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#380

Post by yuhong »

fastball wrote: post #256
danShumway wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh cool, I didn't know that. Thanks for commenting. Is there something I'm missing about Right to be Forgotten then? Why is this needed if it's already illegal to discriminate against someone over minor crimes or scandals? Does the law not have much teeth or something?

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…

I was hoping that it would be narrowed.
Post reply on HN