Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which powerful entity do you mean? The people who want things unlisted, or Google?
The government.
I don't understand your point. I read this as similar to libel or truth in advertising laws.
Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
431–440 of 450 posts
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#432Earlier 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. 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…
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.
> Next time some politician
We had that in Russia since 2016, and your guess how it works is exactly correct (e.g. see Skrynnik vs Yandex case).
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#433"The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person," said Jim Killock, executive director. "The Court will have to balance the public's right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest." I feel like every single comment on here has missed the point. This isn't about removing relevant informatio…
Uh, i think society deserves to know that man abused an animal and is potentially dangerous/mentally unstable. If you’re a young woman about to go on a date with someone i’m sure you’d want to know about that incident
I agree that it should stay public, but because giving the government the power to destroy information and erase history in any sense is a very slippery slope. That said in the above case the man in question would have served his time and be by all counts considered to have been rehabilitated. So it shouldn't be able to be used to discriminate against him. If for some reason he isn't rehabilitated that's a problem with the justice system.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#434This 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…
> It's not clear to me why it's not troubling to European citizens for their government to be in charge of what information is and isn't relevant to the public. Whenever I ask people about this, I get the response "well, that's why we have courts." I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. I think we trust our governments much more than US citizens trust there government. There's a line…
Because that never went badly for the people of Germany and Poland.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#435Earlier 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…
you can be affected even if you did nothing illegal, say you were young and stupid and you were in some camp X(like a political party, or some gaming group, or some sect), then for some reason this things happen: - the fact you were member of X and you done some comments gets a good Page Rank - X becomes very unpopular, people that believed in X ideology are seen as idiots,racists,violent - you got older and smarter…
Again, not a technical problem. If you think people shouldn't concentrate on what somebody did then they were young, Google has nothing to do with it. We can witness in US politics both how people are forgiven for being prominent KKK members and for drowning a woman while driving drunk and then fleeing the scene - and these people not just not become pariahs - they become an important politicians with millions voting for them. On the other hand, we witness high school shenanigans dug up and dissected, decades after, on TV and mass media. All these happened before Google even existed. We as society are capable both of forgiveness and of extreme un-forgiveness, if we want to. We can choose either, or do both, depending on our preferences. In either case, Google has nothing to it.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#436I have a feeling one day public titles, marriage, and criminal records will be in a blockchain ledger, and it'll be impossible for government to order them expunged. The way the governments are handling this is trying to impose secrecy with security through obscurity. But the public records exist somewhere, and anyone wanting to do a background check will eventually be able to track it down. Imagine this case was ins…
And that's how we went back to book burning, again.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mark steal cookies, gets caught and serves his sentence in jail. Now Mark is out, looking for a job as a JavaScript developer but when Mark is Googled to check about his involvement in OS projects and personal portfolio before his Github profile the article on CNN from 5 years ago is displayed and apparently Mark is a cookie monster. Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again? Mark made a mistake but Is He really w…
Because if we know that he stole cookies before, he must axiomatically be considered less trustworthy around cookies than someone who has no history of treat theft. That doesn't mean that Mark doesn't deserve a second chance at life. But it does mean that, for the first while at least, you are ill-advised to give him the keys to the room where the cookies are kept.
> if we know that he stole cookies before, he must axiomatically be considered less trustworthy around cookies than someone who has no history of treat theft
You are confused about what the word "axiomatically" means. If this is an axiom, your system is easily proved inconsistent with reality. Person A is known to have stolen a cookie from the cookie jar when she was three. Person B, who has never stolen a cookie, brandishes a weapon and says "I intend to steal your cookies, so choose: your cookies or your life." Under your axioms, every person must trust person B more than person A with respect to whether they will steal your cookies.
Your argument is probabilistic, not axiomatic. There's a huge difference.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#438This 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…
> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to the US. We don't do the "jury of peers" thing (and I'm still not sure if this if really true or just stories/TV but, aren't juries specifically selected to have no background in the case matter, or legal matter?). Further, it's not unheard of that the judges a…
UK & Ireland still does trial by jury for a lot of trials. So it's not as straight forward as everyone in Europe/EU doing it the same
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#439This 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…
> It's not clear to me why it's not troubling to European citizens for their government to be in charge of what information is and isn't relevant to the public. Whenever I ask people about this, I get the response "well, that's why we have courts." I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. I think we trust our governments much more than US citizens trust there government. There's a line…
> Essentially, if you believe in the rule of law and democracy, the government is simply ourselves, getting collectively together to fix something.
Rule of law being the key part. The U.S. has no rule of law, and our legal system doesn't punish those in power or those with money. For some relevant reading, I recommend Greenwald's book, With Liberty and Justice for Some.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think that the EU is right in this regard, and I wish a similar principle existed in the US. But I was surprised that the EU court in this case ruled against one person simply because he served a 4 year sentence. His case was more than a decade old, and it was non-violent and non-sexual. It seems like an inconsistent application of this principle. Sentences are often based on the amount of money involved. So…
If you read the article it was a bit more nuanced than that. The one who had the right to be forgotten denied had a track record of misleading people about his conviction. The court (rightly, in my view) took this behaviour as evidence that his conviction remained relevant in a way that it was not for the other person (described as showing remorse). They didn’t just measure the length of the sentence. IMHO, this is a…
When the lie is essentially acting like the record was already expunged, that is a terrible reason to deny expungement. It's not quite catch-22 but it's getting close.