Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by greglindahl » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 12:22 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #320

greglindahl wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA causes huge costs for search engines because of all of the bogus takedowns, which people can send without any consequences. Congress could fix that aspect of the law, but has chosen not to.

> The DMCA causes huge costs for search engines because of all of the bogus takedowns The search engine could ignore all takedowns and be in exactly the same situation as it would be without the DMCA; the safe harbor provision isn't a mandate on them, it is a benefit to them. They deal with takedowns because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of copyright liability they would have without the DMCA, which mean…

Er, ok, I formed my opinion as to the relative liability cost as the executive in charge of DMCA of a search engine that raised $63mm. I dislike appeals to authority on HN as much as the next person, but you sure seem confident at knowing something about small search engines that only a small number of people actually have experience with.

And if you've never gotten a DMCA takedown from Perfect 10, you probably don't understand the true terror of the DMCA process.

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

#322

Post by paulddraper » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 3:04 AM UTC

Retra wrote: post #190

ballenf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like you're almost asking about others' right to know about a person's past crimes. So I'll ask it: Should I be able to google my children's friends' parents before I let them spend the night over there? I use this case because it wouldn't provide the basis of legal background check and presumably google would be my only source of info. Or does the right to be forgotten not apply to child abuse crimes?

Child abuse? If your child's friend's parent is a known child abuser, why do they have their own child staying with them? It shouldn't even come down to that. You should meet them maybe, or give your children a phone so they can contact you if something goes wrong. Or just don't worry about it so much in the first place. Either way, I don't see why paranoia should be used as a driver of policy. You can "think of the…

It's not uncommon for children to live with formerly abusive parents. Drugs, alcoholism. The system is supposed to help parents be able to reunite.

(Sexual abuse is almost always another story, though.)

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

#323

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 6:06 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #320

greglindahl wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA causes huge costs for search engines because of all of the bogus takedowns, which people can send without any consequences. Congress could fix that aspect of the law, but has chosen not to.

> The DMCA causes huge costs for search engines because of all of the bogus takedowns The search engine could ignore all takedowns and be in exactly the same situation as it would be without the DMCA; the safe harbor provision isn't a mandate on them, it is a benefit to them. They deal with takedowns because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of copyright liability they would have without the DMCA, which mean…

> The search engine could ignore all takedowns and be in exactly the same situation as it would be without the DMCA; the safe harbor provision isn't a mandate on them, it is a benefit to them. They deal with takedowns because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of copyright liability they would have without the DMCA, which means the DMCA is saving them money, not imposing a cost.

You're treating the safe harbor and notice and takedown as indivisible when they obviously aren't. Conditioning the safe harbor on notice and takedown is a huge cost compared to the alternative used in CDA 230.

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

#324

Post by askmike » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 9:22 AM UTC

losteric wrote: post #301

askmike wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a really poor metaphor because the fridge is the problem - you don't want people seeing that content because it's inherently "bad". If it's not on Google search, it becomes harder to find... but it's still there, still discoverable, and now you have no awareness or control over the situation. I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity.

> I guarantee Yandex and Baidu will not respect western delusions of security through obscurity.

This has nothing to do with security through obscurity, it has to do with rights of human beings. Anyway Google doesn't either, hence the article.

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

#325

Post by askmike » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 9:24 AM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #311

askmike wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

RTBF is Europe-wide, you have courts that make precedents like that which are Europe-wide even though Europe has a lot of different countries. And sure, I'm sure you'd call what you have free speech. But that's not the way the US defines it.

> RTBF is Europe-wide

Nope it's not, it's an EU law and EU !== Europe. Europe has 51 countries while the EU only has 28. Just like Mexico is not in the US, a ton of European countries are not in the EU.

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

#326

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 3:03 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #323

dragonwriter wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The DMCA causes huge costs for search engines because of all of the bogus takedowns The search engine could ignore all takedowns and be in exactly the same situation as it would be without the DMCA; the safe harbor provision isn't a mandate on them, it is a benefit to them. They deal with takedowns because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of copyright liability they would have without the DMCA, which mean…

> The search engine could ignore all takedowns and be in exactly the same situation as it would be without the DMCA; the safe harbor provision isn't a mandate on them, it is a benefit to them. They deal with takedowns because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of copyright liability they would have without the DMCA, which means the DMCA is saving them money, not imposing a cost. You're treating the safe harbo…

> You're treating the safe harbor and notice and takedown as indivisible when they obviously aren't.

They obviously are both part of the DMCA, so you can't say that the DMCA imposes costs based on the notice and takedown condition for the safe harbor, because ignoring that condition leaves the host in the same position they would be in without the DMCA.

You can say that the notice and takedown requirement reduces the cost savings of the safe harbor compared to the hypothetical policy of an unconditional safe harbor, or one with alternative sets of conditions, but that's a very different claim than the DMCA imposing costs.

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

#327

Post by Zack9999 » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

philippejara wrote: post #148

joe_the_user wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The post above shows a complete misunderstanding of the issue. "Right to be forgotten" laws apply as much to other sources of information as they do to Google. The discussion has become a bad version of "telephone", people responding to quotes in the parent rather than knowing anything about the issue in question. The question of whether one uses Google or other sources is irrelevant here. Sure, journalists could go…

This is effectively giving the government power to decide what is legal speech and what isn't, no thanks. And yes I know defamation laws already do give them this power kindam but I still find them disgusting.

Disagree this is about giving private citizens control over information about them, that is inaccurate or no longer relevant. Who wouldn't want that right?

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

#328

Post by visarga » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #300

redler wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone else mentioned on this thread, there's little distinction in search engine results between something that happened yesterday and something that happened 20 years ago. We now have the phenomenon of information no longer "aging". We've always had "news" to tell us what's, well, new. But over time that information would age. It would become harder to recall, and take more work to retrieve. A story on the even…

"Old news" - what an oxymoron! I agree with you - the real answer is to change how we react to personal blunders, we all have our bad moments and now they are forever logged and accessible.

btw, I see I got hammered, "oxymoron" is not a kind of moron.

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

#329

Post by baud147258 » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 9:28 AM UTC

I think for Google to be able to claim their search result are journalistic is a little like them having the cake and eating it. They are already claiming they are not responsible for the content they are distributing (because fake news and all...), but they also claim that that content should be protected.

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

#330

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Apr 09, 2018, 3:44 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #326

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The search engine could ignore all takedowns and be in exactly the same situation as it would be without the DMCA; the safe harbor provision isn't a mandate on them, it is a benefit to them. They deal with takedowns because the cost of doing so is less than the cost of copyright liability they would have without the DMCA, which means the DMCA is saving them money, not imposing a cost. You're treating the safe harbo…

> You're treating the safe harbor and notice and takedown as indivisible when they obviously aren't. They obviously are both part of the DMCA, so you can't say that the DMCA imposes costs based on the notice and takedown condition for the safe harbor, because ignoring that condition leaves the host in the same position they would be in without the DMCA. You can say that the notice and takedown requirement reduces the…

> They obviously are both part of the DMCA, so you can't say that the DMCA imposes costs based on the notice and takedown condition for the safe harbor, because ignoring that condition leaves the host in the same position they would be in without the DMCA.

The safe harbor and the anti-circumvention rules are both part of the DMCA too, but it's silly to argue that the anti-circumvention rules don't impose net costs because if you average them together with the safe harbor it comes out somewhere near neutral. They don't cease to be divisible just because they were enacted at the same time. Otherwise you could justify anything by just finding something which is as good as the target thing is bad and lumping them together on the same side of the scale.