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

Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

cjr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 334 posts

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#91

Post by MPhmW7zskHcnKg »

When I was a child, I committed a crime.

They waited until just after my 18th birthday to charge me, and according to UK law that means that my name etc. could be published. Most of the articles get the details subtly wrong, and insinuate that I did much worse than what actually occurred.

I believe, if I wanted to, I could exercise my right to be forgotten. But what's the point? Google is not the only search engine out there, and there is absolutely no way I could get every search engine to comply. Anyone who really wants to dig up my past would still be able to.

Despite the fact that, in theory, the right to be forgotten would benefit me greatly, I think it needs to go. It's a complete waste of resources because it can never be effectively enforced.

Ultimately, I've come to terms with the fact that my history isn't too much of a bad thing. If someone doesn't want to do business with me because of it, then I've just filtered out someone with superficial prejudices.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#92

Post by [deleted] »

gaius wrote: post #52
lightbyte wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because i…

[deleted]

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#93

Post by gethesmane »

kelnos wrote: post #66
gethesmane wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty journalistic to me. You might want to think about what the basic definition of "journalism" is, then. And how maintaining a relentlessly detailed, universally accessible dossier on the 1 percent of the population that qualifies as truly notable persons (such as politicians or notorious criminals) -- i.e. what traditional "journalists" do -- is in fact, quite different from ... maintaining such a dossier…

From a legal and censorship standpoint, I absolutely want entities like Google search to be defined as journalists. Just because something falls under a legal classification, it doesn't mean we'd start calling Google search a journalist in colloquial usage.

It sounds like you see no problem with selectively manipulating the English language to drum up support for legal outcomes "absolutely want" to happen, then.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#94

Post by amelius »

megaman22 wrote: post #69
kelnos wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're seriously suggesting that someone should have to go to their local library and wade through years of back issues to see if their child's friend's parents have committed a crime? And also travel to whatever other places they've lived to do the same? All because blah blah right to be forgotten, so google etc. isn't allowed to index the relevant articles? That's absurd.

That's almost exactly the opposite of what I'm arguing. I'd argue that previously, all of this information was on file, and accessible, and relatively well-known. Google delisting it is the weird, anomalous development.

> all of this information was on file, and accessible, and relatively well-known

But there is a big difference between having information at your fingertips in a searchable database, and having to go to a library and do the searching manually.

Perhaps google could provide the information after the user solved 1000 captchas :)

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#95

Post by ksk »

darawk wrote: post #2

Seems pretty journalistic to me. This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me. Should we give Trump the right for his bankruptcies to be forgotten? Do we give child molesters the right for their crimes to be forgotten? Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record? EDIT: I should point out, I do understand the other side. People shouldn't be punished…

>Why should people have the right to have things they don't like wiped from the historical record?

Because a judicial process made that determination. Random people don't decide anything, they petition.

As an aside, there absolutely nothing journalistic about an advertising company like Google.

>This "right to be forgotten" seems incredibly dangerous to me.

It doesn't seem like that to me at all. The purpose is also to protect victims of revenge porn, or victims of slanderous propaganda, who have no other recourse.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#98

Post by guelo »

lightbyte wrote: post #14

"Right to be forgotten" just sounds so ridiculous to me, how did this become a thing? Are people going to want to burn the history books at their local library next because it contains some information they don't like reminding people of?

> how did this become a thing?

Google is a foreign corporation to Europeans so it sounds scarier and more sinister to the general public. Politicians take advantage of that to demagogue so they pass harsh laws to show that they are doing something against the scary foreigners.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#99

Post by curt15 »

gaius wrote: post #52
lightbyte wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Why are journalists allowed to report on something that we aren't allowing a search engine to show?

Why are we only forcing Google to remove this information when, as you say, it will still be in the public record. Because ease of access makes all the difference, and it is disingenuous to argue otherwise. This law won't protect Trump from having his bankruptcies reported but it will protect someone who made a stupid mistake when they were younger having it haunt them for the rest of their careers or lives because i…

>Because ease of access makes all the difference,

But every inconvenience presents a business opportunity that will inevitably be seized upon so long as the information being sought after is still considered part of the public record. The public record consists of all information that the public has a right to know. A more honest solution would actually declare certain information privileged and make it illegal for websites to publicize it.

Re: Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming it’s journalistic

#100

Post by baldfat »

Heliosmaster wrote: post #23
baldfat wrote: post #15

> ‘right to be forgotten’ I really think that hiding facts is a mistake. Yes someone made a bad mistake why is it their right to have it removed from the internet? Now if there are factually wrong then absolutely they should have the ability to have it removed. Things can legally be removed from a person's record like crimes committed by minors but if someone's life was impacted are we going to remove the victims' st…

A search engine != the internet. It should not be removed from the internet, but it should be removed from google. It's not the same thing as dealing with paper newspaper. One you have to go an explicitly look for the information and browse through them to get it (and still it can escape your gaze). With google you just need to type name and surname, and everything is at your fingertips.

removed from the search engine is like Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where the demolition of the earth was filed in the basement in a file on a far off world.
Post reply on HN