251–260 of 309 posts
I want the EU right to be forgotten
Google probably just wants to prevent criticism of Google employees and get one step closer to preventing criticism of themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee. Mugshots.com was doing exactly this until they got hit with extortion charges: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-mugshot…
" Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee." I don't believe anyone has an obligation to remove if someone found not guilty. The arrest happened, that's a fact. The informatio…
And while expungement is a complicated thing, it generally means that legally, it never happened. That has tons and tons of different legal interpretations even within one jurisdiction, depending on the who/what/why.
For instance you might be legally protected to claim you were never arrested when getting your driver's license, or applying for a job, but not on a concealed-carry permit application.
Depending on how a 3rd party distributes that expunged info, it could be considered libel or slander, especially once the publisher/speaker is made aware of the falsehood, or given a court order, yet persists.
Judges don't usually bother ordering newspapers to try and collect and destroy what's already been distributed, but...
Papers are certainly not allowed to reprint it or continue to publish/distribute after they've been given whatever constitutes legal notice. At least some jurisdictions will award punitive-damage-multipliers for continuing to distribute those falsehoods after some point where they should have known not to.
So if you're sending out an email newsletter, you might be ok by not sending that issue to anyone else.
But leaving the same content on a website would probably be considered "continuing to publish."
Which basically means: it's complicated.
And that doesn't even touch the blackmail or extortion elements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do anything you want on your own property, but if said property burns down because of incorrect electrical work you did yourself, you might not get money from your insurance...
Where is this notion of "you can do anything on your property" coming from? A similar one is also "it's my car, I'll do what I want with it", etc. But all modification to both your house anr your car have a big possibility of puttinf others in danger. If you mod your car in a dangerous way or screw up your house electrical wiring, other unrelated people may get hurt - you don't have the right to do that!
As you point out there are likely punitive consequences but those are after the fact.
This is an example of a large central authority censoring information. How does the notion of a purely distributed, unregulated, uncensorable, blockchain-backed internet handle "revenge porn" or other genuinely harmful content? An argument I hear from the crypto community is that blockchain is good because it enables freedom of speech that can't be banned by governments or other central authorities. The crypto commun…
One might even say that they filter their results in order to promote a preferred ideology. To propagandize us, even. Search any modern hot topic on Google. Do the same on one of the various alternative search engines (duckduckgo, for example). Compare the results. It's educational.
My goal, in case it's not clear, was to find out more about how dates are commonly used in Cambodia (for some localisation code I was writing). DDG just gave me "uncensored" spam sites about dating Cambodian women (I didn't check any of them out, but I'd wager quite a few, if not all, are just scams, if not worse). And while the Google results also weren't quite what I was looking for, it sure was a hell of a lot more relevant.
And this is with safe-search on.
Couldn't fit the whole tweet, so just to be clear, she's talking about manual, non-legal requests: > One of the surprising things about working on the slander series is how few people in the field, even experts, know that Google voluntarily removes some search results. (No court order needed!) You have to visit this generic url: https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?... Down the thread, she adds…
> Because so few people know about it, "reputation managers" are charging people like $500 a pop to "remove damaging information from Google results." And ALL THEY DO is fill out that form for free. Someone tried to hawk this service to my husband after he came under attack. While that sounds like a high price, and you usually don't want to just hire the first person you see advertise a service, the concept of specia…
My Grandfather used to tell a story about an old aeroplane that wouldn't start. They found a retired engineer who agreed to come out and look. Did so, had a listen when they tried, And nodded to himself.
From his toolbox he removed a hammer and smacked the engine once sharply. Suddenly it started right up. Magic
He presented them with a bill for £205. "That's absurd, all you did was hit it with a hammer!".
"Ah yes", the engineer replied. "It is £5 to hit the engine, the other £200 is for knowing where to strike"
(This would typically be as part of a discussion of the meaning of "knowledge is power")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Technically yes, but they are removed when a person is found not guilty or released without being charged thus protecting the innocent and falsely accused. The mugshot sites capitalize on this by scraping the government websites and archiving them forever - until you pay a removal fee." I don't believe anyone has an obligation to remove if someone found not guilty. The arrest happened, that's a fact. The informatio…
You're focusing on the "public record", when you need to be focusing on what constitutes blackmail, extortion, bribery, etc. And while expungement is a complicated thing, it generally means that legally, it never happened. That has tons and tons of different legal interpretations even within one jurisdiction, depending on the who/what/why. For instance you might be legally protected to claim you were never arrested w…
No, libel/slander/defamation has nothing to do with distributing factual information, including expunged records.
Judges can't order you not to publish factual information. If they do, it's against the constitution and your First Amendment rights.
While a person can claim the event never happened, it doesn't change the fact that it did, and doesn't take your constitutional rights from talking about it.
On the extortion note, see the techdirt link.
This is an example of a large central authority censoring information. How does the notion of a purely distributed, unregulated, uncensorable, blockchain-backed internet handle "revenge porn" or other genuinely harmful content? An argument I hear from the crypto community is that blockchain is good because it enables freedom of speech that can't be banned by governments or other central authorities. The crypto commun…
My answer is No.
The "genuinely harmful content" is minimally harmful compared to the damage censorship can do.
The problem is always with people being dicks, not the information. E.g. a jilted lover posting porn videoes of an ex is only a problem because the lover will deliberately attempt to show them to the ex and the ex's social contacts (and even that is only harmful because some people are judgemental bastards. Yes, some people like scat, get over it), so target the lover with harassment charges rather than making the information distribution illegal.
I'm a bit of a freedom of information purist, I think a world with 0 censorship would be better than the current one, as the censors will always be tempted to censor more and more things to advance their interests. The maximum badness from zero censorship is much much lower than the maximum badness with censorship.
Couldn't fit the whole tweet, so just to be clear, she's talking about manual, non-legal requests: > One of the surprising things about working on the slander series is how few people in the field, even experts, know that Google voluntarily removes some search results. (No court order needed!) You have to visit this generic url: https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061?... Down the thread, she adds…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because so few people know about it, "reputation managers" are charging people like $500 a pop to "remove damaging information from Google results." And ALL THEY DO is fill out that form for free. Someone tried to hawk this service to my husband after he came under attack. While that sounds like a high price, and you usually don't want to just hire the first person you see advertise a service, the concept of specia…
> People often pay electricians even for tasks that are just "flip a switch and turn some screws," after all. My Grandfather used to tell a story about an old aeroplane that wouldn't start. They found a retired engineer who agreed to come out and look. Did so, had a listen when they tried, And nodded to himself. From his toolbox he removed a hammer and smacked the engine once sharply. Suddenly it started right up. Ma…