61–70 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true, just yesterday there was trending article[1] about journalist who was forced to take down the article. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308
The use has broadened as member states interpret it differently The EU top court has been consistent that only de-referencing needs to occur
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right to be forgotten actually clearly stipulates those things. Information that's "of the public interest" cannot be forgotten under RTBF, for instance. It clearly defines the reasons people should be able to have their information forgotten, such as it being false, very out of date, private, etc. Unfortunately, right to be forgotten has a huge weak point: It relies on the party forgetting (often Google or Bing) to…
> I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company. Wouldn't that mean politicians and their cronies can more easily scrub their own histories? Government holding the keys to approve/reject RTBF means it will be biased in favor of self-serving government-related RTBF requests
And the biggest part about these decisions being handled by government is that there would be accountability, records, and appeals, all of which you really don't have when a corporation is making the decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public? You mean like PIs? > That is a gross violation of your privacy and illegal theft of your data. Most people don't like it, but it's certainly not illegal.
> You mean like PIs? Yes, but they have a government-approved license to do so, normal citizens do not. Random civilians aren't allowed to just PI people. In terms of privacy rights, it would be for the best if people had mandatory implants inserted at birth that automatically prevented brains from recording things about other people in public that haven't consented to your recording. I'm thinking something like Whit…
The reason such a law is required is often stated as "What if I, a changed person, am still haunted by something I did 20 years ago?" which to me seems more of a problem with our culture failing to adapt to new technologies. The world changed too rapidly and the culture is too emotion-driven these days, making 'right to be forgotten' laws seem necessary when the problem should, ideally, be solved by education.
I don't have the time right now to go into in depth about my thoughts, but I think there needs to be a distinction between 'right to be forgotten' as a cultural value and 'right to be forgotten' as law, the same way there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech' as a value ("I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") and 'freedom of speech' as law as in the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn, though, that is up for discussion.
My thoughts on the matter can be summed up as follows: Blocking some speech from your private website or publishing old racist tweets on your private website should fall in the same category (roughly) as eating an entire birthday cake: Something that shouldn't be illegal but something that should not be seen as good, people who do it should be made aware that what they're doing is not good but that it is their right to do so.
The recent controversy about Carson King (the viral Busch Light man) and his old racist tweets and the public reaction to all that come to mind as an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about the right to be forgotten just the other day. It reminds me of the line "democracy is the worst form of government, except from all of the others which we've tried". Imagine a young person who gets wrapped up in some illegal activity. 30 years later settled down with a wife and kids he goes for a job interview and the person across the desk happens to have googled his name. That to me doesn't fee…
The question is if you should defend the rights of the past offenders or current potential victim. Sure, there might be repercussions for past conduct, but at the end just one person is responsible for it. On the other hand you have potential victims who can't protect themselves by doing background check on potential perpetrator. If you prevent the victim from taking reasonable precautions, aren't you at least a litt…
Either people are once a criminal, always a criminal and should be permanently extricated from society; or people have the ability to grow and deserve a second chance at a normal life.
I believe in the latter, as does the justice system that lets people go after their time is served (barring sex offender registries, at least). And I understand that yes, sometimes, we get it wrong and a person reoffends. Life is messy and sometimes unfair, but we have to strike a balance and take some risk sometimes.
I further believe that if a person is able to put their criminality behind them, the recidivism rate will drop. If you deny them gainful employment because Google decided a news article from 20 years ago is the most relevant thing about a person, which biases all future potential employers against recruiting him, then I believe they will have far less to lose and are more likely, right or wrong, to take upon them the mindset that, "if you're going to treat me like a criminal, then I am going to act like one!"
> Fearing a court could potentially order "politically or religiously sensitive material" be removed, Gratton says she's "not a big fan of the right to be forgotten." What is religiously sensitive material?
I really hate the 'right to be forgotten'... it infringes on other people's 'right to remember' I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.
> I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know. Europe right to be forgotten only applies to publicly indexed searches, not the content - according to the top court Nothing you said seems to be the reality that exists So just bookmark a page and revisit it later, the tools have existed since the 90s
I am not saying I have the right to a personal diary, I am saying I should have the right to tell my story to whoever I want, and to share it however widely I want, and to help other people find what I have to say however I want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But if there were more people like Kim Peek who could recall anything they read, like a walking, talking, search engine, should they be muzzled online?
If what they say breaks a law yes. For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. This is a classic instance where right to be forgotten is used.
Now, suppose he was never convicted. Am I allowed to write about my experience now?
What about my right to remember?? What right does anyone else have to demand that you forget something? Do they have more say about your body than you yourself? If so, you are a slave. When tech merges with brains will they demand intrusion to delete what they don't want you to remember?
You can still remember -- you're just restricted from publishing or storing insecurely. Privacy effectively means the right to be left alone.
I really hate the 'right to be forgotten'... it infringes on other people's 'right to remember' I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.
>I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know. I previously asked[0] how EU would treat a convicted rapist such as (American) Brock Turner. The reply by commenter IAmEveryone says the law would prohibit the victim from writing about it. (If the scenario is not clear, a victim's blogpost is not a search i…