Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 334 posts

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

#191

Post by 1337biz »

guelo wrote: post #182
mynewtb wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So someone posted a real photo of 'Eric driving drunk' to the web. Eric did not approve of that in any way and wants it gone. The someone could not care less. What is the solution in your model?

If Google didn't post it why would you go after Google? Tell whoever posted it or whoever is hosting it to take it down.

Because Google makes it easy to find. Nobody cares about some rant about you by an anonymous customer, or just your ex partner when it is on page 73. But if it is on page 1 and the other party refuses to take it down you just feed an endless army of lawyers.

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

#192

Post by Clubber »

darawk wrote: 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…

There should be an exclusion for public figures. We have plenty of exclusions for them regarding privacy already.

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

#194

Post by astura »

losteric wrote: post #119
yulaow wrote: 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.

Seems like a very dangerous road to go down.

My parents abused me, however, they were never convicted of a crime in a court of law because nobody ever reported them. The statue of limitations has almost certainly passed by now so they are unable to be convicted. Are you suggesting it should be illegal for me to say that my parents abused me?

Same with Bill Cosby's accusers, the statue of limitations has passed on all of those. Should those women really not be legally allowed to have their voices heard?

I can't see this leading anywhere except an authoritarian regeme where court proceedings are conducted in secret - after all, the suspect is being publicly accused on crime in court.

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

#195

Post by Retra »

Heliosmaster wrote: post #21

I see here a few comments criticizing the right to be forgotten, but I pose a question a bit differently. Let us assume somebody commits a crime. He goes to jail, he pays for it, as society deems necessary. A local newspaper reported it and now every time you google their name such an article pops up. This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. It seems to me the debt to society has been paid by…

Well, the idea that their debt to society has been paid is probably too formal for the real world. Real society is very vindictive, and never really lets any such debt be paid off.

These are primitive times. If someone commits a crime we should be figuring out why they did it and how we can prevent it from happening again. We shouldn't just be putting people away with moral debts. Our society's vindictive nature on these matters is exactly why they don't forgive and forget. They can't forget, because they never cured the 'root cause' of the crime, and thus must constantly live in fear of it recurring.

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

#196

Post by rhacker »

jasode wrote: post #85
oldcynic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem dangerous or journalistic at all here. In the UK at least the legal system is already aware and deals quite reasonably with the right to be forgotten. Has done for years. After a certain period a crime is considered spent and you can not be required to reveal it - except in some very limited circumstances. You'd have to reveal spent crimes if you want to join the police or become a magistrate for instanc…

>Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then? Since you're familiar with it, I'm curious how the following situations are handled... There was a famous rape case involving a Stanford student. His name is Brock Turner. If you search directly on keywords "Brock Turner"[1], the first results will be his rape conviction. I think it's logical to assume the Right To Be Forgotten wants the…

And.. what about other Brock Turners that want to be HIGHER in the search results?

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

#197

Post by astura »

gray_-_wolf wrote: post #147
shakna wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?

In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.

Saying "X was convicted of Y" is not a "false claim," when X really was convicted of Y. If X's conviction is later overturned, that's additional information, but it doesn't make the original information false.

Nobody owes anyone an apology.

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

#198

Post by greglindahl »

oldcynic wrote: post #73
darawk wrote: 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…

Doesn't seem dangerous or journalistic at all here. In the UK at least the legal system is already aware and deals quite reasonably with the right to be forgotten. Has done for years. After a certain period a crime is considered spent and you can not be required to reveal it - except in some very limited circumstances. You'd have to reveal spent crimes if you want to join the police or become a magistrate for instanc…

Why is Google the one that you're pointing the finger at? There's a website with that data, and if the website removed it, Google would forget it.

Also, you might want to consider the barrier to entry for a new search engine.

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

#199

Post by rhacker »

mental1896 wrote: post #113
lightbyte wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like the actual problem is >This makes every person they might do business with to withdraw. Hiding information from people sounds like a bandaid to the issue of people being overly judgemental. Maybe we need to be more accepting to rehabilitation.

This is a very interesting point. The internet brings its users ever closer together and it's not beyond reason to imagine this closeness reaching a point where it is similar to the closeness experienced by ancient tribes. Today we would find it hard to imagine, say, seeing our neighbors naked but it was once very normal. So we've come to expect a certain amount of privacy. A reduction in this privacy might precipita…

Except this theory doesn't work with today's search technology. For popular people (or social media queens) you will see exactly what they you want to see on the first 200 pages. For lesser popular people with names like "Jenny Zarkaneflaky" (fake person you don't need to google) you will see the one time they smoked pot and got quoted in the school newspaper for saying all people on the planet should die.

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

#200

Post by rhacker »

ugh123 wrote: post #74
rectang wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, that the "internet is forever" is utterly inhumane. But I live in a country (the US) which is savagely vindictive towards "criminals" (though only poor criminals) both by cultural tradition and as a means towards suppression of minorities. I'm white, but my name is more common amongst black Americans. If you google me, some of the top image hits are mugshots of unfortunate black people. It doesn't affect me, b…

The whole mugshot industry is such a racket that needs complete overhaul and regulation. Probably separate regulation then "right to be forgotten".

Actually the entire "public records" industry including your family members birth certificates, etc.. I get the idea of making something public record, but to aggregate it and automatically purchase this data from government data holders is down-right-scuzzy. Often these companies also make it available for instant search then claim you have the right to take it down, but not without signing up with your email and agreeing to a bunch of BS. Yes we definitely need legislation here.
Post reply on HN