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

'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#61

Post by dang »

Tomte wrote: post #59
dang wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please keep nationalistic flamewars away from here? You could hardly start one more obviously.

I just defend myself against obvious flames that my country, as all others except the US, is comparable to China. You have a few examples right here in this thread, and you don't care. As usual.

I didn't see such a comment. If there are other posts that broke the site guidelines, you're welcome to show us links, or flag them. Even if there were, though, it doesn't excuse taking the thread further into flamewar.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#62

Post by saghm »

Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but "NGOs" just means "non-governmental organizations"; would it be accurate refer to any arbitrary group of companies (that are unaffiliated with any government) as "NGOs"? While the article does specify that it is a "British-led alliance of NGOs", it seems to me like one could call a group consisting of Google, Facebook, and other similar companies as "NGOs"; what's to say that these NGOs aren't just companies that profit off of the lack of a "right to be forgotten"?

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#63

Post by detaro »

saghm wrote: post #62

Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but "NGOs" just means "non-governmental organizations"; would it be accurate refer to any arbitrary group of companies (that are unaffiliated with any government) as "NGOs"? While the article does specify that it is a "British-led alliance of NGOs", it seems to me like one could call a group consisting of Google, Facebook, and other similar companies as "NGOs"; what's to say tha…

The term isn't 100 % clearly defined, but generally only refers to non-profits and similar entities, not traditional companies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#64

Post by _8j50 »

saghm wrote: post #62

Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but "NGOs" just means "non-governmental organizations"; would it be accurate refer to any arbitrary group of companies (that are unaffiliated with any government) as "NGOs"? While the article does specify that it is a "British-led alliance of NGOs", it seems to me like one could call a group consisting of Google, Facebook, and other similar companies as "NGOs"; what's to say tha…

NGOs are typically aid companies like oxfam or the redcross. They're not always humanitarian but they're typically western orgs working in non-western countries for some cause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#65

Post by megous »

acct1771 wrote: post #56
megous wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is obvious that people have conflictng desires, but so what? What's your conclusion from that? "Unrestricted" freedom of speech favours just one side.

The side speaking. So, unless one side is deaf... or, in this case, fingers are broken...

Your meaning is not clear to me.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#66

Post by quickben »

SilasX wrote: post #38
quickben wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is a nation. The particular instance of the law is designed to help (non-public important) individuals. Various companies that built fortunes on easily collectible data, argue against the law with the "limiting free speech" line because they don't want to spend money on the data cleanup side. The rest is propaganda.

And dismissing concerns about "memory hole"ing, by pandering to hatred of rich companies, isn't propaganda?

The NGO in question has a budget of 7 million pounds a year employing over 100 people to do, in their words: lobbying.

The actually law was put in place by representatives of the voting majority of EU.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#67

Post by mikejb »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #26
mikejb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions? The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

You would not be imprisoned. You could at least try the "fire in a crowded theater argument." Though even that isn't truly limited today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Imprisonment isn't the only limiting factor in free speech. Direct or indirect financial impact works well too (e.g. you'll miss your flight because we deem your opinion suspicious and have to investigate you).

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#68

Post by conception »

swebs wrote: post #47
conception wrote: post #35

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly impossible to stop them from getting the others. The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes…

I feel like your second point answers your first. The difference between information sharing in the past and today is obviously the problem of scale. Looking up your neighborhood used to be useful and small chance of people bike locking you. Now, the scale has increased a thousand fold. What was .01% of a crazy hunting you down maybe is 1%? 10%?

Maybe a right to anonymity with the efficiency losses you get there is worth it? Tough issue.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#69

Post by conception »

travisoneill1 wrote: post #55
conception wrote: post #35

I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com, doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history without any recourse." Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

These doxing sites don't actually allow anything new, they just aggregate and automate public records searches. It just didn't cause problems because the inconvenience was too high of a barrier for most people without a compelling interest (like a potential employer) to cross. The law is not good at handling this type of situation. It would be hard to have a law saying that this data has to be public and open, but no…

People who move into the public eye generally are held to a different standard of anonymity, which is why I separated them.

And yes, the issue isn't that it's new, it (like many internet social issues) is scale. A few bad actors locally to now thousands world-wide.

Re: 'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs

#70

Post by mikejb »

olleromam91 wrote: post #51
mikejb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions? The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

Your second concept is something that every human believes in, whether you want to accept that or not. We're selfish by nature. We choose who we like and who we don't like.

Are you referencing to the "we're better than you?" - then I have to disagree, strongly. Most people I meet can differentiate between personal preference and objective superiority. None of the people I know well enough to say would argue that the country they live in is "the best" or "number one". They like it there, but have their eyes open enough to see that other nations solve some problems better,and that there is no absolute "best country".
Post reply on HN