Live data from Hacker News

Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

cjr.org

121–130 of 334 posts

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#121
post #7

It seems strange to me that a New York based journalism institution didn't use the plaintiffs real names. On what basis do you suppose they decided to honor EU/English law?

On the basis that the information simply isn't available, it doesn't appear in any court publications. eg a recent UK Supreme Court case was: 'R (on the application of HC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others (Respondents)'

HC here has her name witheld (R is 'Regina', ie the Crown). Exactly the same thing happens in the US; eg in Roe v Wade, 'Roe' (a Jane Doe plaintiff) didn't have her identity revealed until she herself told the press who she was afterwards; the papers still use the pseudonym to describe it.

If the identity is known by other means the US press has been known to publish - eg in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJS_v_News_Group_Newspapers, it was a celebrity case and the story had been shopped round various papers, with the result that US tabloids got the story and knew it would sell copies. In this case there's no likely source for a leak.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? No we should not, the law seems well intentioned, some kid may not have to worry about an embarrassing photo from university days following him/her around into their adult life, etc. But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information.

>But I think it would be an overall net negative for abuse in hiding truly relevant information. You say that, but according to some reports, only 5% of requests to Google to remove personal information from search results comes from high-profile figures (politicians and the like), the rest is just ordinary people [1]. I know that there is a huge selection bias going on here, but I'm not sure you can discount the dat…

I don't know if the volume of requests is as important as the nature of the request. If part of the 5%, let's say it's high profile person due to running a large ponzi scheme that defrauded people out of millions of dollars, that may be only one request but it is info that most definitely should be easily surfaced.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#124
post #8
post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

As I recall from "The man who spent 100,000$ to remove himself from google," the "right to be forgotten" specifically targets falsehoods and lies. So no, Trump's bankruptcies won't be forgotten in this system, but a false accusation of child molestation can be.

We already have laws to address falsehoods and lies (libel/slander).

This whole "right to be forgotten" thing just seems like a good way for wealthy people to hide inconvenient facts from public view. If it was really about falsehoods and lies, why wouldn't they go to court with the existing laws?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#125

When I was a child, I committed a crime. They waited until just after my 18th birthday to charge me, and according to UK law that means that my name etc. could be published. Most of the articles get the details subtly wrong, and insinuate that I did much worse than what actually occurred. I believe, if I wanted to, I could exercise my right to be forgotten. But what's the point? Google is not the only search engine o…

Most people would agree that what you do as a child shouldn't be held against you as an adult, provided you've learned from your mistake. I'd say that what happened to you is a perversion of justice.

You've paired your sense of helplessness with a need for divine perfection to reason away the purpose behind the right to be forgotten.

There are people who have been faced with injustice, who haven't succumbed to letting it affect them forever. There are people who have paid their debt to society and shouldn't have that perpetually held against them.

> Despite the fact that, in theory, the right to be forgotten would benefit me greatly, I think it needs to go. It's a complete waste of resources because it can never be effectively enforced.

There is no law that is completely, effectively enforced. Laws against murder aren't effectively enforced, murder still happens all of the time. However, laws allow public action to be taken and give recourse to victims.

> no way I could get every search engine to comply

There are a handful of search engines people use. If Google alone complied, that would probably eliminate 90% of anyone who would ever search for you online.

> Ultimately, I've come to terms with the fact that my history isn't too much of a bad thing. If someone doesn't want to do business with me because of it, then I've just filtered out someone with superficial prejudices.

In a way, you have the privilege of being able to filter out opportunities. A few words in someone's history can effectively bar them from being hired or finding a place to live, leaving them with little to no opportunity. About a week ago, there was a post by an HN member about such a situation [1].

In the end, bills need to be paid and people need to eat. If someone has dependents, like the guy above [1], they will suffer.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16708224

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#126
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counter-example: What if someone accused you of raping her/him and that news remains online close to your name because it's a typical scandal and heavily reported but, when it is proven that you didn't commit the crime, there is no news reporting it because it's not a clicky article? It happens frequently, not only with rape, but with any false accusation of a major crime... Typically there are a lot of articles abou…

Counter solution: Outlaw publishing suspect names until after they are convicted. This model is used by other nations because regulating publications prevents both short and long-term harm while still preserving access to the truth.

And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#127
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because it would otherwise have been the top hit when you google'd their name. I don't agree that this will protect anyone, or that they need to be protected in the first place. This is just hiding the problem that someone would judge you for whatever the content is. In my opinion the…

That's not really the way business works, though. If one of your employees is the top result on Google for a dumb meme, it could be a liability to the business' image with clients. Hence, you don't take the risk of hiring them over someone else, even if the dumb memer is more qualified and a better fit overall. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk if there's other, less qualified but less risky, potential hires.

this is why anti discrimination laws exist, work on applying that.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#128
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is forgetting the default instead of remembering? You assume that it's better for all of us if we default forget, but that's probably not how you treat your own information, or what you know about others. Isn't more transparency a good thing? Do the government, public figures, elected figures, law enforcement, your doctor and those who provide you medical care have the right to force you to forget everything abou…

so when you forgive someone you never forget? Sure you list some good examples to remember but there are far more reasons to forget. To remember should be meaningful. Should anything other people believe to be bad always be remembered of you? If this was the case everyone would hate everyone.

> when you forgive someone you never forget?

I'm sorry, are you arguing that not forgiving governments, elected officials, and people in positions of power and authority (or those seeking such power) is a problem in our society? Like, the US, the country that elected Trump, is having a problem with forgiving/forgetting past transgressions?

> but there are far more reasons to forget.

If there are that many, why didn't you name them?

> If this was the case everyone would hate everyone.

Hate isn't the issue. We're talking about real world problems with consequences. Evil doesn't just go away because you forgive it, people who are harmed are still harmed, and costs incurred need to be paid. If you just forgive and forget naively, that means the people who are hurt just keep paying, over and over. And the people who take advantage of it just keep winning forever.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#129
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

> should we eliminate it as a source of truth? From my point of view, Google eliminated itself long ago: it's already intentionally very biased, distorting the reality by design, different to every of its users: adjusting the "algorithm" to return to the seeker what the seeker would click the most and also what the Google's marketing would like to present, even to the point of intentionally ignoring the very words yo…

I know you already say that is your point of view, but I think this very much in the eye of the beholder. I very much like this personalization and it makes it easier to find things I'm looking for. E.g. when I search `latex` I don't want to find latex bodysuits, I want results about LaTeX and I expect Google to know that.

That said, it would be nice if there was an easy way to turn off this search personalization on a search-by-search basis in a similar manner to how one can look for results from a certain time period

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#130
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google cannot become our only source of truth, but should we eliminate it as a source of truth? What about other search engines? Social media shares? What happens when a journalist publishes an article based on offline investigation, does the right to be forgotten still apply? Search engines need to fight libelous SEO attacks, but this is a deeply unsettling over-reaction. Let's drop the Orwellian phrasing and call i…

The right to be forgotten is meant to protect individuals' privacy. You sound as if you believe that a world in which all knowledge was public forever would be a better world. I disagree with this and think that we have to weigh it with individual privacy and safety. Not to mention the fact that these search engines are not 100% accurate, so it would be beneficial at least to allow people to remove inaccurate sources…

Address the problem, not the symptoms. The problem is at the platform level, so regulate platforms like Facebook. Search engines simply search what they scrape.

* If someone feels consequences of an offensive 2007 tweet, just delete it. Platforms should be required to make it easy to delete content.

* If someone is scared of saying controversial things, avoid platforms that require real identities. There are plenty of anonymous platforms.

* Uphold social media to the same standards of traditional media, requiring truth and propagation of redactions and corrections. Libel and slander are well-established concepts.

* Demand discretion from friends. In college, my group had a strict "no-camera" rule when it came to embarrassing or unlawful shenanigans. My parent's generation had the same rule.

Hiding search results does not address the problem. If someone posts a photoshop of "Eric driving drunk" on Twitter, I want that post promptly removed... the search results are just a symptom.

Post reply on HN