81–90 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So am I restricted to tell you what I know about someone?
Under specific circumstances, yeah.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So am I restricted to tell you what I know about someone?
Under specific circumstances, yeah.
Genuine question: Who benefits when everything we ever do, say, etc. is permanently recorded on a grand, systemtic level?
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"Potential victim" sounds a lot like precrime in Minority Report. 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…
Yes, and I should have the ability to judge wether or not they've grown and changed, but I can't do that if I'm not even aware they committed crimes in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I can write about it, but I can't help anyone find it to read? 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.
You still have that right, stop making up arm chair legalese. Your Search Engine Optimization is supposed to fail within the EU. Telling people in person, telling people in group chats, telling people anywhere you want is fine. According to the top court, the different service indexing all that stuff, within the EU, has to de-reference.
And forcing search engines to remove the content is certainly, in my opinion, infringing on my right to share my story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"Potential victim" sounds a lot like precrime in Minority Report. 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…
> Life is messy and sometimes unfair, but we have to strike a balance and take some risk sometimes.
I don't think we should choose what risks someone else has to take. If someone has a rule 'I will never, ever, date anyone who has ever raped anyone', who are we to tell them, "Nope, sorry..... you don't get to have that rule for yourself.... we have decided for you"
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 are arguing against an oversimplified slogan. The actual ruling is about the right for your public information to not be indexed and publicized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Potential victim" sounds a lot like precrime in Minority Report. 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…
> or people have the ability to grow and deserve a second chance at a normal life. Yes, and I should have the ability to judge wether or not they've grown and changed, but I can't do that if I'm not even aware they committed crimes in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under specific circumstances, yeah.
Wouldn't that seem to violate the idea of freedom of speech? What if someone running for public office requests that I "forget" and not share what I know about some bad things they did in the past?