101–110 of 317 posts
I don't really see why this is a deal. If I decide I want to delete the content I put on Medium I very well want them to delete it everywhere else as well. One could read that as "Medium tries to protect their users content".
When 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.
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.
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 picture disappear later?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what? The EU does not get to make laws for other people. That's why we have countries.
You are missing the point. The EU makes laws that govern - and at least try to - protect its citizens. If a document on the archive is created by a European citizen, then it is under EU law. That's why every company in the world right now that deals with European citizens is working on supporting GDPR. That also applies here.
The EU cannot enforce its law on entities that are entirely US based. It can only enforce it on non-EU sites if that site has some sort of business that’s within the EU (like offices or employees).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a large number of people fail to realise is that the GDPR applies to any person (natural or legal; a data controller and/or data processor) that holds personal data on a EU citizen or EU resident, regardless of where the data controller (or data processor) is. Obviously EU law can only be enforced in the EU but if you are a business then any funds in the EU that belong to the data controller can be frozen or use…
Nitpick, but as far as I understand it, it's only EU residents (regardless of their citizenship). The specific text says "data subjects who are in the Union", and citizen never appears in it. (This is for foreign businesses. EU businesses have to apply it to everyone , regardless of their location or citizenship.)
https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#14
https://www.fightcyberstalking.org/how-to-block-your-website...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are missing the point. The EU makes laws that govern - and at least try to - protect its citizens. If a document on the archive is created by a European citizen, then it is under EU law. That's why every company in the world right now that deals with European citizens is working on supporting GDPR. That also applies here.
Not quite. The EU might want that but it gets into jurisdiction. The EU cannot enforce its law on entities that are entirely US based. It can only enforce it on non-EU sites if that site has some sort of business that’s within the EU (like offices or employees).
See also changes to "safe harbour".
When 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.
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.
Putting someone else's work on a different website and serving it to others would be similar to printing copies of someone else's books. If the author changes his views, it wouldn't be acceptable for someone else to print new copies of the book. Making a copy of a website for your own personal use would be much closer. I don't think anyone disagrees that you should be able to do that.
Earlier 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…
You are purposefully muddying the issue of access. If you upload your pictures on a password protected ftp server no one will know or care when you delete them. If you upload them on a publicly accessible website, despite what outdated laws on copyright say, you won't be able to withdraw them and that's a feature.
Facebook is a monstrosity that pretends to be a password protected server but leaks your data by design. Do not try to equate someone unpublishing a work after they wrote, uploaded and publicized it with someone removing a drunken status update that should have never been public in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So add some "personal data" to the end of anything you might want to demand someone forget later.
I'm not sure where this idea that nothing could be forced off the web before the GDPR came from.
Earlier 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…