I'm surprised everyone has such black and white views on this. Some things are in the public's interest to record permanently. Some aren't. Laws that respect that distinction are great.
Recording everything forever is good in the same way that a total lack of privacy is good. Many things should be transparent, and they should be recorded. But there's room for nuance.
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It clearly defines the reasons people should be able to have their information forgotten, such as it being false, very out of date, private, etc.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 decide whether or not RTBF applies, rather than a neutral party such as a court. Criticisms of RTBF have largely surrounded examples where the decisionmaking was faulty, and unfortunately, the entities making the decisions would very much like the legislation to fail.
I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company.
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?
Please. No one is literally requiring you to stop remembering things. It’s about scrubbing sensitive information from certain public databases. There are all sorts of other limits on what type of information you are allowed to publish in what circumstances, and none of it applies to your actual memories.
> When tech merges with brains will they demand intrusion to delete what they don't want you to remember?
Yes, but only if it is possible to index/search/dump the contents of people's brains. In that case we are walking video cameras violating people's privacy everywhere we go, and it is only logical that we should mandate people get their brains wiped of privacy infringing information.
How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public? That is a gross violation of your privacy and illegal theft of your data. Wouldn't you want that person's brain to be wiped of information they have on you to protect your rights?
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 index and yet it would still be prohibited.)
Since my April 2018 comment, that hypothetical scenario has been made more concrete when the victim later revealed herself as Chanel Miller on September 2019. She's been fervent in sharing her story (her book) in media outlets including websites.
I don't know of any reliable surveys but I'm guessing the majority of Europeans would favor prohibiting her from sharing her story (RTBF) to protect Brock Turner, but the majority of Americans would not.
(I'm sure there's a similar notorious crime & victim in Europe analogous to USA's Brock Turner but I don't have an example.)
But if you write an article about someone, that contain outdated or false information, you can use right to be forgotten, to at least remove it from search indexes.
Article is still accessible, you can still link it, on HN or reddit or wikipedia, you just wont find it on google search results.
Imagine if Jeffrey Epstein had access to a legal mechanism which enabled him to attempt scrubbing of news/article/forum references of him from the web, beyond just his narrow legal conviction.
Chances are he would still be banging 12 year olds today and Bill Clinton would be smiling ear to ear. (JK obviously on that last one, but my below point will alleviate your suspicions.)
You may not like some speech, namely against you. I may not like certain speech either. But to establish this kind of legal precedent is foolish. What is next, prior restraint with regards to anyone mentioned in an article? I'm sure Big Daddy Donnie Trump would love that one lol.
Free speech is messy as fuck. Look at this "fake news" stuff for the past 3 years. Is it really fake? Debatable. Is it news? In most cases, yes.
Legitimate question I pose: Does free speech extend to deep fakes? (Finally those believing in the Clintons being child sacrificing cultists can be proven true!) This has the potential to get real messy real fast. Hopefully someone with a IEEE/DARPA-level big brain figures out a way to validate videos etc.
It's a ridiculous law that will have to change once deepfakes become more prevalent. Some type of real identity on the web I believe will need to take hold.
The Internet is a public forum would do and say the same things in public you do online?
> 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
> 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."
The reason I don't like 'right to be forgotten' laws because it feels like it's using the law as a blunt instrument to solve a problem that is cultural in nature.
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.
I don't think it's a cultural thing, simply because across time when ever you wanted someone to be remembered, or their actions, you would still do it no matter the medium - word of mouth, paper, stone.
The problem is bound to the internet medium: how information is spread, indexed and stored, while being cheap - so cheap we can almost claim it's free.
It's not a matter of one being a changed person or not. It's simply your right to not have your information indexed, with no intrinsic value attached to it.
People wouldn't be featured on an old mass media like newspaper unless such person was "news-worthy" in the eyes of journalists that had to a code of conduct.
This is why laws have exceptions, e.g. one has the right to require that information about oneself be deleted, unless there is another law that requires the retention of the information.
If it is purely by domain, switch away from google.ca and use google.com to get the results you need.
If it uses geolocation of any kind, use a VPN that allows you to switch between endpoints, and use an endpoint in the States to bring up Canadian information.
In the end, this is nothing more than privacy theatre, in that these changes are only cosmetic and skin-deep.
Granted, I am of the firm opinion that all data is sacrosanct, and that the only thing that should be scrubbable from the Internet is misinformation that has been _proven_ to be demonstrably false by a court of law. Things like prior convictions should not be admissible unless you were later cleared of all charges and the convictions are clearly not in the public’s interest.
People keep trying to force the internet to follow country borders but they don't understand it just doesn't work that way. It's kinda like when your vegetarian neighbours keep complaining about BBQ smells wafting over to their property: the wind doesn't know or care about your property lines.
I don't think any information should be removed/removable from the internet, as long as there is demand for it. Users need to be a bit more savvy for expecting and identifying misinformation though.
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 feel fair, people should have the ability to avoid their past haunting them forever.
Pre-internet the problem was naturally solved. The interviewer could have dug back through all of the local newspapers and happened upon an article but that's incredibly unlikely. Maybe if he was running for public office it might be uncovered.
The other side is that politicians and millionaires can use it to hide their dirty secrets. Nothing is perfect though so maybe that is the price we pay.
Lot's of things can be used for bad things like cars and knives. There are checks in place so information that is important for society is not forgotten.
I feel that the right to be forgotten is valid because people are irrational and will be prejudiced against a person regardless of how different the current reality is. This would make me want to put a time limit (like you have to wait 10 years or something) rather than allow current/relevant information to be suppressed.
I also feel that people don't get to pick and choose. If you want to be forgotten then everything should be forgotten, not just the stuff you don't like.
6gvONxR4sf7o|6 years ago
Recording everything forever is good in the same way that a total lack of privacy is good. Many things should be transparent, and they should be recorded. But there's room for nuance.
ocdtrekkie|6 years ago
Unfortunately, right to be forgotten has a huge weak point: It relies on the party forgetting (often Google or Bing) to decide whether or not RTBF applies, rather than a neutral party such as a court. Criticisms of RTBF have largely surrounded examples where the decisionmaking was faulty, and unfortunately, the entities making the decisions would very much like the legislation to fail.
I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company.
kd3|6 years ago
When tech merges with brains will they demand intrusion to delete what they don't want you to remember?
twiceaday|6 years ago
s_dev|6 years ago
tobr|6 years ago
datenhorst|6 years ago
This is more about the right not to have everything you ever did tattooed on your forehead.
umvi|6 years ago
Yes, but only if it is possible to index/search/dump the contents of people's brains. In that case we are walking video cameras violating people's privacy everywhere we go, and it is only logical that we should mandate people get their brains wiped of privacy infringing information.
How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public? That is a gross violation of your privacy and illegal theft of your data. Wouldn't you want that person's brain to be wiped of information they have on you to protect your rights?
cortesoft|6 years ago
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.
jasode|6 years ago
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 index and yet it would still be prohibited.)
Since my April 2018 comment, that hypothetical scenario has been made more concrete when the victim later revealed herself as Chanel Miller on September 2019. She's been fervent in sharing her story (her book) in media outlets including websites.
I don't know of any reliable surveys but I'm guessing the majority of Europeans would favor prohibiting her from sharing her story (RTBF) to protect Brock Turner, but the majority of Americans would not.
(I'm sure there's a similar notorious crime & victim in Europe analogous to USA's Brock Turner but I don't have an example.)
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776734
unionpivo|6 years ago
But if you write an article about someone, that contain outdated or false information, you can use right to be forgotten, to at least remove it from search indexes.
Article is still accessible, you can still link it, on HN or reddit or wikipedia, you just wont find it on google search results.
GhettoMaestro|6 years ago
Chances are he would still be banging 12 year olds today and Bill Clinton would be smiling ear to ear. (JK obviously on that last one, but my below point will alleviate your suspicions.)
You may not like some speech, namely against you. I may not like certain speech either. But to establish this kind of legal precedent is foolish. What is next, prior restraint with regards to anyone mentioned in an article? I'm sure Big Daddy Donnie Trump would love that one lol.
Free speech is messy as fuck. Look at this "fake news" stuff for the past 3 years. Is it really fake? Debatable. Is it news? In most cases, yes.
Legitimate question I pose: Does free speech extend to deep fakes? (Finally those believing in the Clintons being child sacrificing cultists can be proven true!) This has the potential to get real messy real fast. Hopefully someone with a IEEE/DARPA-level big brain figures out a way to validate videos etc.
paul7986|6 years ago
The Internet is a public forum would do and say the same things in public you do online?
rolltiide|6 years ago
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
SolaceQuantum|6 years ago
Symmetry|6 years ago
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...
iamtheworstdev|6 years ago
marvindanig|6 years ago
criddell|6 years ago
What is religiously sensitive material?
kevin_thibedeau|6 years ago
temporaryvector|6 years ago
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.
libertine|6 years ago
The problem is bound to the internet medium: how information is spread, indexed and stored, while being cheap - so cheap we can almost claim it's free.
It's not a matter of one being a changed person or not. It's simply your right to not have your information indexed, with no intrinsic value attached to it.
People wouldn't be featured on an old mass media like newspaper unless such person was "news-worthy" in the eyes of journalists that had to a code of conduct.
The internet has no morals or code of conduct.
waynesonfire|6 years ago
'Swiss law requires us to archive business data for 10+ years. This means that we do not have the right to "forget" you.' [1]
It's unclear to me how Europeans have a right to be forgotten given the above.
[1] https://www.swissmicros.com/terms.php
noodlesUK|6 years ago
taffer|6 years ago
rekabis|6 years ago
If it is purely by domain, switch away from google.ca and use google.com to get the results you need.
If it uses geolocation of any kind, use a VPN that allows you to switch between endpoints, and use an endpoint in the States to bring up Canadian information.
In the end, this is nothing more than privacy theatre, in that these changes are only cosmetic and skin-deep.
Granted, I am of the firm opinion that all data is sacrosanct, and that the only thing that should be scrubbable from the Internet is misinformation that has been _proven_ to be demonstrably false by a court of law. Things like prior convictions should not be admissible unless you were later cleared of all charges and the convictions are clearly not in the public’s interest.
parliament32|6 years ago
I don't think any information should be removed/removable from the internet, as long as there is demand for it. Users need to be a bit more savvy for expecting and identifying misinformation though.
not_a_cop75|6 years ago
VBprogrammer|6 years ago
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 feel fair, people should have the ability to avoid their past haunting them forever.
Pre-internet the problem was naturally solved. The interviewer could have dug back through all of the local newspapers and happened upon an article but that's incredibly unlikely. Maybe if he was running for public office it might be uncovered.
The other side is that politicians and millionaires can use it to hide their dirty secrets. Nothing is perfect though so maybe that is the price we pay.
simion314|6 years ago
kcolford|6 years ago
I also feel that people don't get to pick and choose. If you want to be forgotten then everything should be forgotten, not just the stuff you don't like.
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]