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

Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#411

Post by ginko »

qznc wrote: post #244
M2Ys4U wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's absolutely insane what they are doing (EU). Should libraries remove newspapers with my name if I don't like what's written there about me? That would be insane if that was how the law works. It's not how the law works.

Then german law is nearly insane. In Germany newspaper are not allowed to name people, especially if they are accused but not convicted. The exception is people "of public interest", which is obviously not a clear line. So, quite literally libraries would have to remove newspapers with your name if you don't like what's written there about you ... unless it is of public interest. I consider this law ok.

This seems entirely reasonable to me.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#413

Post by Sylos »

M2Ys4U wrote: post #246
rleigh wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between allowing people in prison to vote, and in never allowing them to vote again after they are released. People in prison by intention don't have the same civil rights as normal citizens, and so withholding the right to vote doesn't seem unreasonable. Withholding it in perpetuity seems outrageous.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspend the right to vote to some (or indeed to most ) prisoners. But I also don't think it's unreasonable to allow some prisoners to vote, especially where they are imprisoned for short sentences and where it is in the interests of rehabilitating them to do so.

I don't see the point, though, in taking the right to vote away from prisoners.

It's not like stabbing someone makes your opinion on taxes less valid. Or drug dealing makes your opinion of the education system invalid.

Even if you rob someone, your opinion that the poor (a.k.a. probably you) should be financially supported by the government is not less valid.

There can a point be made that you're not exactly participating in society while you're in prison, so if we act like politics always perfectly reflect people's current needs and don't cumbersomely shape over decades, then you could argue that they shouldn't be allowed to vote over other people's society, therefore should only be allowed to vote when they're going to be released in the next legislature period. But that's just not the case. A moron in presidency can and will negatively affect people's lives for a long time after he's gone.

Lastly, I suppose, if you view prison primarily as punishment, then taking away their right to vote just extends that.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#414

Post by karmajunkie »

openasocket wrote: post #408
karmajunkie wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be false for it to be defamatory. It has to be intended to ruin someone's reputation in an unwarranted manner.

Not in any legal jurisdiction I'm aware of, and certainly not the EU Courts. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation.

Truth is an absolute defense, except when its not.

http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/truth-and-defamation/

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#415

Post by smsm42 »

greyman wrote: post #392
smsm42 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. It's not a technological problem. It may be a societal problem (e.g. we are supposed to forgive and forget, but instead we obsess over a mistake somebody made 30 years ago) but I don't see how it is a t…

>> Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. I feel it is basically a cultural issue. Many Europeans (including me) believe that the "right to be forgotten" is real, i.e. we want that right. Company with american cultural roots feels differentl…

Oh, there's nothing wrong with wanting to control other's thoughts and actions. I want everybody to give me money, for nothing, just out of sheer love to me, and execute every wish I have, quickly and eagerly. Believing others have an obligation to do it and you can use governmental coercion to force it and calling it "right" indeed sounds kinda bizarre. But then again, a lot of things in contemporary Europe look kinda bizarre to me...

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#416

Post by smsm42 »

Trundle wrote: post #404
saimis wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m an European and I’m completeley against this kind of censoring. Europe is not homogenous, don’t generalize. And this right to be forgotten is not a “human right” it’s a second chance, a gift, that should be given cautiously. Next time some polititian will want something to be forgotten.

If they declare it a right then it's a right. That's all that word means.

No, actually that's not what the word means. Otherwise you'd have no rights outside of what "they declare" - i.e. if "they" don't say you're human, you are not human and you have to agree with it. Nobody really believes in that.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#417

Post by lithos »

danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

Everyone knows that govt. forcing decency down corporate throats leaves everyone unhappy, it is a compromise after all... Though techies seem to forget the same logic applies to them as well, especially when they push boundary after boundary.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#418

Post by jtbayly »

chrononaut wrote: post #327
mirimir wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, Google only blocks this stuff for searches from the EU. So all you need is a VPN with a non-EU IP address, and you can find whatever. Right?

While valid, only a fraction of the population would know to do this, and then a smaller fraction would believe it's worthwhile. It's an added inconvenience that has to outweigh the disadvantages of not doing it.

You're missing an even bigger issue. How would know that your search results are missing something in the first place?

You're not going to use a VPN to search "from another country" unless you already know or suspect something but can't find any information on it and suspect the reason is because you are searching from the EU rather than the USA!

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#419

Post by eh78ssxv2f »

alistairSH wrote: post #157
DannyBee wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maye the balance could be to not display Marks convictions until specifically asked for?" This is basically the status quo before. But ... the employer is going to background check mark and find them anyway, because they are public record and available in easily searchable databases (see Lexis, etc) In practice, this stuff simply doesn't affect any employment case (at least in the US). None of the right to be forgot…

To the employment case... With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process. While his conviction may still impact his employment prospects, at least he has a fighting chance. With Google in place, Mark never receives a call-back. The employer doesn't bother. How much does this impact Mark in the real world? I have no…

> With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process.

Would the companies start asking in their screening process "Have you been committed of crime before" and that would wash out all the benefits of censoring Google?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#420

Post by jtbayly »

talltimtom wrote: post #328
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #173

> Explaining the decisions made on Friday, the judge said one of the men had continued to "mislead the public" while the other had "shown remorse". Okay, great, so Google's now required to judge right to be forgotten requests based on whether the criminal has "shown remorse." Yeah, that's not arbitrary or even a little impossible to do at scale. Let's grant that there are good cases for removing pages from a search i…

Yes, google can’t immitate the courts. So they just have to honor the request. Besidde people heavily intetsted Nopone gests hurt g

Wait. Nobody get's hurt when a politician asks Google to "forget" (fill in the blank), and Google just does it because they requested it? That's not right. Everybody gets hurt by that.
Post reply on HN