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

281–290 of 334 posts

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

#281

Post by askmike »

greglindahl wrote: post #255
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?

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, tha…

> Europe doesn't have free speech, so, no problem.

Europe definitely has free speech (all the countries I know of anyway, Europe has a lot of different countries). There is just a different definition of what exactly is free speech and what is something else (some racist things are not considered free speech).

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

#282

Post by askmike »

losteric wrote: post #233
spunker540 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Closer to "The problem isn't that I bought a fridge, the problem is that it malfunctioned and my house burned down."

The problem is the content showing up when searching for someone's name, not that there is an article on a website somewhere.

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

#283

Post by mxfh »

lightbyte wrote: post #14

"Right to be forgotten" just sounds so ridiculous to me, how did this become a thing? Are people going to want to burn the history books at their local library next because it contains some information they don't like reminding people of?

Because it is. It's a one-man-show turned into law by EU burocrats in record time, looking for something to slow down american based companies.

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

#284

Post by Khaine »

gray_-_wolf wrote: post #152
Khaine wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is a public figure, and I'm pretty sure there is a public figure exception within GDPR to the right to be forgotten.

And if he wasn't? And become one only after applying his "right to be forgotten"? Would that make any difference?

It would still be in the public record. Nothing would stop someone from digging it up and writing an article about it.

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

#285

Post by askmike »

itronitron wrote: post #249
curt15 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They do not respond to DMCA notices. But Google does cooperate with DMCA. The difference there is that that content deemed in violation of copyright is actually illegal for anyone to distribute; legal responsibility extends all the way to the website owner. Unless content falling under "right to be forgotten" is ruled privileged and not legal for public distribution, any artificial roadblocks to their discovery will…

so copyright everything you post online and then invoke DMCA when it shows up in search results?

You cannot copyright a story written about you (AFAIK IANAL), DMCA is not designed to protect individuals from these kind of things.

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

#286

Post by mxfh »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #105

These "right to be forgotten" laws are already being abused: * German murderers sue for Wikipedia to remove their names from the page about their victim. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0 * Russian oligarch sues Google and Yandex for linking to investigation about investigations of him and his businesses. https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/putins-personal-chef-sue... * A doctor sues to remove ne…

The first one has little to do with the now implemented "right to be forgotten". It's claims were based on long existing german personality law and was actually struck down by the highest german court BGH in 2012 in favor of freedom of information.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/kriminalitaet/klage-...

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/BGH-weist-Klage-von-...

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

#288

Post by poooogles »

greglindahl wrote: post #255
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?

Search engines only show what's posted by other people, so while they're a convenient target, they aren't the actual bad actor. Our legal system tends to attack actual bad actors, not convenient targets. Unless the Internet is involved. The way RTBF and DMCA work, search engines bear 100% of the cost, and people don't ever go after the actual bad actors. By the way, in the US, if Tabloid X publishes Eric's photo, tha…

>Europe doesn't have free speech, so, no problem.

Just because hate speech isn't protected doesn't mean we don't have free speech.

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

#289

Post by return0 »

firasd wrote: post #38

I think part of the solution here is going to need to be social. We need to move beyond the Gawker-like era where if there's an awkward photo of you out there suddenly there's perpetual mass shaming about it. As we grow to know more info about each other we need an increase in societal maturity.

We need a "right to be forgiven" instead that would be a social thing, not something a corporation or the government can control.

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

#290

Post by dhimes »

dingo_bat wrote: post #243
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…

Also think if you are the employer. If I'm hiring somebody (which is inherently a position of some trust), I'd like to know if they have a history of criminal behavior. I wouldn't want a murderer coding my next website.

Even that's the easy case. Let's say you found out that they person was accused of groping a child, but the person was found not guilty. Would you hire then? My guess is not, if you had viable options.
Post reply on HN