Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is English not a European language?
Not since England left the EU.
Britain is still in the EU and GDPR will apply there.
Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
121–130 of 317 posts
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but the article itself is user-provided content to Medium that the author has a right to ask to be deleted (under GDPR), presumably? So perhaps it will be simply a matter of the The Wayback Machine having to have a policy to delete things if requested?
No! GDPR is about personal data, which is well defined in the regulations and does not include blog posts. The right to delete data (or "be forgotten") is nothing to do with GDPR. If the original post contained personal data, it is a different issue but if that was put out into the public domain, it is a hard problem to solve.
Most pages have an author section already.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#123Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For instance, making marijuana illegal has the intention of decreasing drug addiction and dependence That’s not right, is it? Didn’t that Nixon aide admit the drug war was a ruse?[1] 1. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/xd7jkn/a-former-nixon-aid...
But the public is presented as if its purpose was to curb drug addiction. Could be the same with GDPR - great intentions, but the true reason is to entrench big corporations and introduce more barriers of entry for the small guy, which is inline with socialist agenda.
Are you from US? In EU we had many similar rules that were in the public favor and hit the big corporations, the one I am thinking now is the roaming phone charges, big companies lost a lot of profit from this, so you can see that this big companies do not have the power yet to change the laws for their own profits.
But I see a lot of anti EU sentiments here on HN, anything EU does is painted as anti american or anti startups when from inside EU we see it as for the people/society
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Changing robots.txt does not delete content from their archives. If you remove the robots.txt file, the content becomes viewable again. There's no scenario where they can respond to the vast scale of GDPR violations that their archive likely represents, when it comes to manually removing content. There are only three possibilities: avoid the EU as much as possible, dump the archives and start over with an entirely di…
There's no scenario where they can respond to the vast scale of GDPR violations that their archive likely represents, when it comes to manually removing content. "GDPR violations". What's that, exactly? As far as I know, you only have to remove personal data upon request, no preemptively. So I don't see how they are "violations". Will a lot of people make these requests? Possibly, but where's the evidence of that? Pe…
Actually the recommended data handling says you should specifically state the purpose for needing the data, and that it should be reasonably limited to that need; i.e. if you don't need it any more you should pro-actively delete it.[0]
[0]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1475/de... Pages 4-6
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#126When I delete an article from my blog, it's because I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore. Be it shame, inaccuracy, change of mood, etc... I think there is something fundamentally wrong with wanting to have EVERYTHING backed up at all time against the creators' will.
I really like this post:
It's been deleted by its author and archive sites are the only places where I can find copies. I've saved a copy for myself just in case. If you use an article like this as a source, it'd be nice if there were a copy somewhere.
This is one of my favourite independent movies:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1527628
I bought a DRM-free copy from the writer/director back when they offered it on their website. The main website is still there, but the whole purchase/download system is broken and those domain seem to have expired/been purchased by someone else. I almost lost my copy of this movie, but luckily I found it on one of my off-site backups.
People talk about how much content there is being created, but there's an incredibly amount of content that's being lost forever. Even if it's still out there, search monoculture (today we have Google/Bing/DDG where once we had Lycos, Hotbot, Altavisa, etc. etc.) can effectively keep content from being accessible. There might be something nice about the ephemeral nature of that content, but there's also something sad there as well.
To go back to your point, if someone publishes an article, it is nice to be able to see it again in the future. If they don't want it backed up, there are procedures like DMCA (if the author didn't publish the content to the public domain and the archiver is based in the US).
As a side note, we've already seen on here that the Right to be Forgotten is more about censorship than anything else.
Eventually we'll all go extinct, our sun will burn out, and everything that ever was and is will be lost. So preservation efforts really only go so far, and this brings up some more deep philosophical ideals about the ephemeral nature of what we produce more than anything else.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're incentivizing people not to write. That's bad, we should encourage people to write. It's OK to make mistakes. I see this problem as an even bigger problem with kids. Kids put everything they do online, and they will probably be ashamed of a lot of these things later in life. Comparing that to Facebook: I guess I shouldn't upload pictures on Facebook because it's against my right to want to see one of my old…
I think a difference can be made about the individual "right to be forgotten" and the transparency/accountability of a public company.
people like you and I can write on Medium.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
A simple solution: don't publish things you don't want people to read. This is no different to burning books that the authors no longer support the views in.
So you're incentivizing people not to write. That's bad, we should encourage people to write. It's OK to make mistakes. I see this problem as an even bigger problem with kids. Kids put everything they do online, and they will probably be ashamed of a lot of these things later in life. Comparing that to Facebook: I guess I shouldn't upload pictures on Facebook because it's against my right to want to see one of my old…
People should be encouraged to create, but with the knowledge that anything published may be retained by others, and that it can have consequences. No technological measure will prevent people from making personal backups or gaining access to data published under the presumption of secrecy or time-limited availability — even if all the layers of DRM work, the analogue hole will always be there.
Rather, invest in teaching kids how to safely publish under pseudonyms or anonymously if they wish to publish their angst-ridden teenage vampire poetry. You can always abandon your connection to that work that way — even if the work lives on for all the world to see.
> Comparing that to Facebook: […]
You should indeed never upload anything that you might wish to expunge at a later date. You have the right to see an old picture gone from Facebook, but you don't have the means to enforce removing it from your cousin's private backup on their own computer.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#129I wonder how wayback machine will work after GDPR? I can't imagine they can just show content that the authors deleted from primary sources?
GDPR is not relevant to this. It’s not about enforcing copyright on people’s work.
It’s about ensuring that companies only store and process privacy-sensitive information about people which they are given consent to store and only used for the purposes the consent was given.
There is nothing privacy related wrt the author in a public article published worldwide for everyone to read. Clearly outside the domain of GDPR.
It’s not hard people, just common sense. Just treating user-data with respect. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking it’s harder than it actually is.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR doesn't change anything in this respect. Copyright law applies. Why would the owner of the copyright make a complaint to the data protection authorities of the EU who might choose to do nothing when they could directly file a copyright infringement case? I suppose you could add insult to injury, but the data protection agency is likely to rule that the issue is one of copyright infringement.
I post a letter on a pole. You take a picture of it. I sue you for sharing that pic, and pretend you still have free speech.
I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate...
There is plenty of nuance to copyright, such as public forums, public domain, fair use, etc. You have those defenses available to you. However, a person can bring a civil action against you anytime you make a copy of their protected work. The case may or may not be meritorious but already defending against a lawsuit is a penalty. Archival facilities are already exposed to this risk and they actively lobby for protecting their activities as fair use to varying degrees of success.
A person cannot bring civil action against you under the GDPR. They may make a complaint to the data protection authorities who may bring action against you if your use of the data is unlawful. Therefore, there is no way to force a person to have to even face a trial under GDPR. If your use of the data is unlawful, you certainly have no license, so you are not protected less under the GDPR than under copyright law. If your copy counts as fair use, then it will count as being lawful under Article 6.1 (e) and no action can occur under the GDPR.