Statement from the law firm:
https://raue.com/en/news/industries/media-and-telecommunicat...
A German court forced the removal of a Wikipedia article’s history
71–76 of 76 posts
Re: A German court forced the removal of a Wikipedia article’s history
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDPR applies to EU-citizens, so I think if the Internet Archive contains material referencing an EU citizen they would need to comply.
How does the EU can enforce anything over an organization that does not have a legal presence in the EU? At best they can force their ISPs to block the website in their countries, but I can't see how much more they can do.
I believe archive.org does have a physical presence in Amsterdam, which may not help in this context.
Re: A German court forced the removal of a Wikipedia article’s history
#73If I were running Wikipedia, I would make some effort to programmatically archive online citations, like archive.org does. Imagine some government persona mis-tweets something that leads to article-worthy historical consequences; if twitter deletes the tweet, can that person sue to have it removed from wikipedia because it made her/him look bad, on the basis that the original citation link doesn't work?
I think this is the main concern here. The link for the source isn't available anymore, therefore the claim stands without anyone to be able to honestly argue against it. Should someone with poor moral and enough reach wanted to have something removed legally from wikipedia or any other such website, they would 'just' have to take down any other online source. In the age of the internet and knowledge being available 24h, this is concerning.
Re: A German court forced the removal of a Wikipedia article’s history
#74Remove the server located at EU and denying the access from EU, problem solved.
Why would they need to deny EU access? Let the EU implement its own fascist firewall.
Re: A German court forced the removal of a Wikipedia article’s history
#75Brexit is seeming smarter every day. What started as knee jerk reaction to immigration seems more sensible than ever, for myrid reasons.
At the current rate, it wouldn't be too implausible to see leave win by more votes in the case of a second referendum.
Still, it also provides an interesting opportunity for political parties if they have the guts to follow through, do something pro consumer/voter and stick to their guns. Think about it. A pro Brexit party who said outright that they were not going to be for internet censorship or privacy violations and pushed their views as a counter to the likes of Article 13 could win a lot of support in the tech industry/with younger demographics, and they'd probably reap a fair few financial benefits for themselves and the country too.
And given its the US that's raking in the money with the likes of Google/Facebook/Amazon/whatever rather than the EU, it could make economic sense to work more closely with them than Europe too.
Re: A German court forced the removal of a Wikipedia article’s history
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is archive.org not exempt? They are outside of EU jurisdiction unless they made the mistake of opening an office over there, which would be trivially fixable by shutting it down.
They are not exempt in the sense that the EU (or individual member states) will start blocking the Internet Archive if they don't comply.
Cool. Let the EU have their own little mini-Internet in complete denial of the existence of wrongthink.