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

231–240 of 334 posts

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

#231

Post by aaron695 »

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…

Other than the moral bankruptcy of this comment it is also a total lie.

This has nothing to do with removing from the record at all.

And to use the 'what about the children' defence..... Or worst somehow bringing up Trump....

It's hard to know where to start.

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

#232

Post by dithering »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22
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…

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

> Removed from google != removed from public record.

"It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'"

I'm imagining a subscription-based aggregator - something like LexisNexis, say - that isn't subject to the same right-to-be-forgotten laws that search engines are.

It at least seems possible that we'll end up with a situation analogous to the credit scoring industry - with data accessible to corporations, but not accessible to individuals.

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

#233

Post by losteric »

spunker540 wrote: post #226
guelo wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem isn’t that the content exists- it’s that google surfaces it.

"The problem isn't that someone lit my house on fire - it's that I can see the fire"

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

#234

Post by oldcynic »

greglindahl wrote: post #198
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…

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.

It's my understanding that the EU right to be forgotten legislation places the onus on the search engines to do the delinking. It's the search engines that have forms to submit requests to, not BBC, CNN and so on. It's the search that provides the visibility.

I've no idea if they considered barrier to entry or relative size when drafting the law or built in any limitations. Of course until an engine reaches some level of popularity it's unlikely to receive many or any removal requests, so should remain manageable for them. If it were the individual sites every site would need a policy and takedown request, just like most have now added something for DMCA requests. Doesn't that just put the barrier to entry up for everyone publishing a site?

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

#235

Post by wdr1 »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #22
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…

Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Removed from google != removed from public record. If google has become our only source of information we are pretty much screwed. If Trump were to have his bankruptcies "forgotten" by google then journalists would still report when relevant since he is a celebrity/(sigh)politician, and any entities considering doing business with him or anyone shou…

The right to be forgotten != Google

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

#236

Post by chris_wot »

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…

Hardly. I work for a media company, and they were very clear to us that they are a provider and not media company, and have no editorial stance, nor do they do any journalism.

They can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

However, it's pretty ridiculous really. If they claim to be journalists, then it should be possible to also sue them for defamation if they publish defamatory material. Currently you can't because, quite rightly, they use safe harbour provisions to prevent being sued. They are now sailing into waters where they are at risk of not being able to claim this.

The folks at Google haven't thought this through clearly.

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

#237

Post by chris_wot »

drharby wrote: post #161
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…

Honestly, i believe the damage to ones life should stop when the judicial system has said the debt to society has been paid. One reason i desire to see more convict employment advocate groups

Sad you have been downvoted, I largely agree.

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

#238

Post by greglindahl »

oldcynic wrote: post #234
greglindahl wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's my understanding that the EU right to be forgotten legislation places the onus on the search engines to do the delinking. It's the search engines that have forms to submit requests to, not BBC, CNN and so on. It's the search that provides the visibility. I've no idea if they considered barrier to entry or relative size when drafting the law or built in any limitations. Of course until an engine reaches some leve…

I was asking you why. As a search engine developer, I'm very aware that the EU is trying to put me out of business before I start.

And yes, the DMCA is also a barrier to entry for search engines, but at least it's one that I understand well.

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

#239

Post by lotu »

Sharlin wrote: post #45
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.

The real problem is internet makes everything look like it happened yesterday. Traditional news is, well, news, but Google doesn’t really distinguish between yesterday and 20 years ago. Some 90s articles and pages are still perfectly relevant and should be on the first page of search results, others very much not so.

This is a interesting point. You could imagine a partial simplistic solution that de ranked historical information for people unless it is specifically being asked for. It’s not clear that a search for a person’s “Bob Smith” nessacarily is interested in Bob’s 20 year old crimes, they might reasonably looking for things that person is currently doing like making music or writing or something else. This is the case when we search for celebrities. Now most people don’t have much interesting stuff on the internet so those old articles pop up. In fact those old arrivals typically have such low rankings that a common solution to this problem is to start a blog and be really aggressive about putting your name all over the place, if the point of Googling someone was to reliably find out if they have a criminal history from a long time ago you wouldn’t expect it to be so easily defeated.

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

#240

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

mynewtb wrote: post #167
losteric wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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?

Well maybe Eric shouldn't have "driven drunk"? Im not sure why search providers should be held accountable for protecting the carefully curated (false) reputations of individuals.

  All of the "right to be forgotten" arguments seem to devolve to "people shouldn't be able to know any data points that would negatively effect my social standings".
Post reply on HN