What always baffles me about the right to be forgotten is that the issue never is if something should truly be forgotten - it should not, it will stay on record, in news articles etc. - but always if the offending piece of information should be removed from search engine indexes.
I find this really troubling, because just making it harder to find does not remove it and shifts power to persons who can make better use of search/indexing tools or have the means to hire someone who does.
It's a reasonable, but imperfect analogue for the old obscurity by sheer quantity.
If you are a regular employee seeking a new job, it shields from idle searches turfing up minor offences from years or decades ago. Europe seems to embrace the possibility of rehabilitation, and I think it's fair that shoplifting or a suspended sentence eventually goes away. In this context, plenty of roles would be exempt from the expiry, e.g. joining the police, or working in the legal system, among many others.
Neither case will prevent some major politician, business leader or celeb being investigated if they come under enough of a cloud. Lack of search just makes it a little less trivial. If your journalist really thinks there is history to be found you send an intern or three to trawl through 30 years of press archives at the local reference library. How it used to be done.
To me, that seems a reasonable balance and sensibly protective of the general population being discriminated against for having done something minor and daft 25 years ago.
> [...] violated his rights and his "ability to develop his personality,"
That's a rather poor translation of "Recht zur freien Persönlichkeitsentfaltung". It's not really about developing your personality, it's the right to live freely and pursue your personal life goals; something more akin to "the pursuit of happiness".
I'm a bit torn in this case. I'm generally for the right to be forgotten, especially in cases like this one, after the criminal has served a lifetime in prison and has been re-integrated into society. However, the decision has some strange aspects to it and elicits the usual ignorance about the Internet.
From what I've read, the judges primarily bemoaned that it is so easy to search for his case by his name. Instead, the German magazine Der Spiegel is supposed to kind of obfuscate the original articles in their online archive, making discovery harder, but not necessarily to delete them or alter his name in them. The idea is that the stories should be harder to find in searches by name. In my opinion that makes no sense, neither technically nor from the point of view of the 'right to be forgotten' - and in a case like this, the stories are all over the net anyway.
> The idea is that the stories should be harder to find in searches by name. In my opinion that makes no sense, neither technically nor from the point of view of the 'right to be forgotten'
In the case of the "right to be forgotten" no kind of obfuscation is needed from the publisher. Article stays where it is in its originality the only thing that happens is that article is no longer shown in search results of search engines when searching the mans name. If you search for the name of the victim those articles still might show as search results.
Makes perfect sense to me. The aim is not to eradicate all evidence of the crime. The aim is just to allow him to lead a normal life where he doesn't have to worry that a single Google search of his name would lead to him getting fired.
The question is whether the court would be happy with just this. Does the verdict say it's up to Der Spiegel to get this unsearchable, or up to some search engines like Google to remove it from their indexes?
BTW: TIL that Yandex also supports <noindex> HTML tag:
Well that's disappointing. I've generally been in favour of right to be forgotten as in a UK context it aligns well with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
A minor offence would be legally forgotten quickly, a murder would carry a sentence of over 4 years which would never be eligible for forgetting. It seems odd to me to clear something quite so serious.
I find interesting that while the "right to be forgotten" does not prevent the person from being named, all the articles I have found on Google are careful not to name him (and I'm not talking about German articles, but articles in English from non-German sources).
This strikes me as self-censorship.
As an aside, it's also interesting that a person sentenced to life for murdering two people in 1982 was freed in 2002...
"Life" in Germany typically means between 15 and 25 years (and there's no such thing as stacking life sentences). Nobody is ever kept permanently incarcerated except for very very very extreme circumstances where they are considered still dangerous, and must be kept in a separate facility that's technically not a prison sentence. The goal of the justice system in Germany is reform, not retribution.
The "self-censorship" is done out of respect for the spirit of the law.
In Germany and most of Europe actually you get a life sentence for murder.
Life sentence is 20 years, (a bit less if you show remorse). Unless you are deemed criminally insane then you won't come out maybe ever.
Also in the EU the name of criminals are usually not printed or published in any other way unless it's a big thing like murder of multiple people or massive fraud.
Tabloids sometimes do print the names but usually only with the first letter of their last name
It's part of a voluntary press codex - or, better to say, an interpretation thereof - to not fully name suspects of crimes. Every reputable newspaper adheres to it and even a few less reputable ones, but the yellow press/tabloids don't.
This is btw. normal procedure in Germany, culpits are usually not named, with the exception of boulevard media thinking they have to break that rule in some cases. If a name is printed it is usually shortened to hide the identity of the suspect (e.g. Franz M.)
This probably has its roots in the past, with Nazi lynchings were justice was just skipped and people thought they had to carry out a sentence themselves.
Although I understand the emotional conflict that arises from situations like these, it gives me actually confidence in the justice system of the nation I currently live in: if they even defend the rights of a murderer, this indicates they will also take the privacy of everybody else seriously.
Edit: I also don’t feel I need to know whether e.g. my neighbour served a prison sentence — the goal of german prisons is rehabilitation and they are actually not bad at that.
Life means a Life sentence, as in you are never free. That does not mean you spend the rest of your life inside a prison.
This murderer will still be under supervision until they die, will have particular restrictions about how they live their life, and will be recalled to a prison for almost any minor offence. However the parole board will have made a decision that they are unlikely to offend again and so it is better for society, the taxpayer (and the individual) to allow them to live outside of the prison walls,
I don't know the details of this case, but, the guy was caught and served his time. He has been punished for what he did, and hopefully he's been rehabilitated and can reintegrate back into society.
That's a lot more difficult if any employer (for example) googles his name and decides to not hire him because he did something thirty years ago.
He's asking for a change in search results, that won't erase what he did and / or his conviction.
I find these discussions pretty boring, because virtually none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles of our Grundgesetz that are at the center of this legal question.
I'm not talking about familiarizing yourself with standard legal doctrine or landmark constitutional court rulings. Just having a little respect for the fact that the US Constitution does not apply.
The right to be forgotten is not decided on a whim by a few judges, according to their personal preferences, there is legal text surrounding the issue.
We Europeans who criticize your Second Amendment may be shallow, as well, but we have usually at least read something about a "well-regulated militia" or the "right to keep and bear arms", so we understand where you're coming from, even if we think that's nuts.
> none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles of our Grundgesetz
... referring to "two or three" specific articles without providing a link, or at least the numbers so we can look them up, is not as useful as it could be.
There was a chance for the US Constitution to apply, in translated form of course, when West Germany was initially created. I'm really sorry that we didn't share. Freedom of speech is something worth fighting for. The fact that the people currently running your country can legally oppress the speech of their political opposition is terrible. Politics shouldn't include the possibility of prosecuting your opponents for campaign speeches.
>>...when he shot and killed two people and severely injured another during a row.
My two cents: maybe the memory should be longer for a few things, stealing a loaf of bread or smoking pot is quite different from murders. In many countries cold blooded murders give you a life sentence or death (either by the state--or victim's family members when the state does not act) so maybe this guy should have had the chance to file such an appeal.
From the sounds of this it wasn't actually murder, it was manslaughter. Murder requires being premeditated where this sounds like it was heat of the moment.
Personally I think we should either rehibilitate and then forget in order to give them a chance to contribute to society, or keep them in prison. The idea of releasing people but then villifying them will basically just channel them back into the criminal system again. Studies have shown the best way to prevent crime is with reintegrating them socially. The biggest risk factors are:
[+] [-] Grumbledour|6 years ago|reply
I find this really troubling, because just making it harder to find does not remove it and shifts power to persons who can make better use of search/indexing tools or have the means to hire someone who does.
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|6 years ago|reply
If you are a regular employee seeking a new job, it shields from idle searches turfing up minor offences from years or decades ago. Europe seems to embrace the possibility of rehabilitation, and I think it's fair that shoplifting or a suspended sentence eventually goes away. In this context, plenty of roles would be exempt from the expiry, e.g. joining the police, or working in the legal system, among many others.
Neither case will prevent some major politician, business leader or celeb being investigated if they come under enough of a cloud. Lack of search just makes it a little less trivial. If your journalist really thinks there is history to be found you send an intern or three to trawl through 30 years of press archives at the local reference library. How it used to be done.
To me, that seems a reasonable balance and sensibly protective of the general population being discriminated against for having done something minor and daft 25 years ago.
[+] [-] Nitramp|6 years ago|reply
That's a rather poor translation of "Recht zur freien Persönlichkeitsentfaltung". It's not really about developing your personality, it's the right to live freely and pursue your personal life goals; something more akin to "the pursuit of happiness".
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
I bet that the people already rotted due to his bullets will ask the court for the same rights.
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|6 years ago|reply
From what I've read, the judges primarily bemoaned that it is so easy to search for his case by his name. Instead, the German magazine Der Spiegel is supposed to kind of obfuscate the original articles in their online archive, making discovery harder, but not necessarily to delete them or alter his name in them. The idea is that the stories should be harder to find in searches by name. In my opinion that makes no sense, neither technically nor from the point of view of the 'right to be forgotten' - and in a case like this, the stories are all over the net anyway.
[+] [-] Kbelicius|6 years ago|reply
In the case of the "right to be forgotten" no kind of obfuscation is needed from the publisher. Article stays where it is in its originality the only thing that happens is that article is no longer shown in search results of search engines when searching the mans name. If you search for the name of the victim those articles still might show as search results.
[+] [-] DangerousPie|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jakub_g|6 years ago|reply
The question is whether the court would be happy with just this. Does the verdict say it's up to Der Spiegel to get this unsearchable, or up to some search engines like Google to remove it from their indexes?
BTW: TIL that Yandex also supports <noindex> HTML tag:
[+] [-] NullPrefix|6 years ago|reply
I'm not sure if we have the same definition of that word. Maybe it is one of those marketing-speak lifetimes?
[+] [-] monroviamonkey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tom_mellior|6 years ago|reply
Interestingly, the ruling refers to the yacht as "A.", unlike the BBC article which uses the full name.
[+] [-] bildung|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NeedMoreTea|6 years ago|reply
A minor offence would be legally forgotten quickly, a murder would carry a sentence of over 4 years which would never be eligible for forgetting. It seems odd to me to clear something quite so serious.
[+] [-] curt15|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nabla9|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeremyfranco|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|6 years ago|reply
This strikes me as self-censorship.
As an aside, it's also interesting that a person sentenced to life for murdering two people in 1982 was freed in 2002...
[+] [-] kstenerud|6 years ago|reply
The "self-censorship" is done out of respect for the spirit of the law.
[+] [-] geek_at|6 years ago|reply
Life sentence is 20 years, (a bit less if you show remorse). Unless you are deemed criminally insane then you won't come out maybe ever.
Also in the EU the name of criminals are usually not printed or published in any other way unless it's a big thing like murder of multiple people or massive fraud.
Tabloids sometimes do print the names but usually only with the first letter of their last name
[+] [-] jonathanstrange|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bloak|6 years ago|reply
I don't think naming people online is a good idea any more.
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliceryhl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atoav|6 years ago|reply
This probably has its roots in the past, with Nazi lynchings were justice was just skipped and people thought they had to carry out a sentence themselves.
Although I understand the emotional conflict that arises from situations like these, it gives me actually confidence in the justice system of the nation I currently live in: if they even defend the rights of a murderer, this indicates they will also take the privacy of everybody else seriously.
Edit: I also don’t feel I need to know whether e.g. my neighbour served a prison sentence — the goal of german prisons is rehabilitation and they are actually not bad at that.
[+] [-] larnmar|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] albertgoeswoof|6 years ago|reply
This murderer will still be under supervision until they die, will have particular restrictions about how they live their life, and will be recalled to a prison for almost any minor offence. However the parole board will have made a decision that they are unlikely to offend again and so it is better for society, the taxpayer (and the individual) to allow them to live outside of the prison walls,
[+] [-] vixen99|6 years ago|reply
"rectify — the Ministry of Truth euphemism for the alteration of the historical record:"
[+] [-] asjw|6 years ago|reply
In 1984 the facts were changed, the chocolate ration is the most famous example of this.
This is just the right after 30 years of jail having paid the debt to society to have a second chance.
The official records and newspapers of the past 30 years report the fact as it happened, nobody altered them
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|6 years ago|reply
That's a lot more difficult if any employer (for example) googles his name and decides to not hire him because he did something thirty years ago.
He's asking for a change in search results, that won't erase what he did and / or his conviction.
[+] [-] ga-vu|6 years ago|reply
I don't get this article at all...
[+] [-] Tomte|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Tomte|6 years ago|reply
I'm not talking about familiarizing yourself with standard legal doctrine or landmark constitutional court rulings. Just having a little respect for the fact that the US Constitution does not apply.
The right to be forgotten is not decided on a whim by a few judges, according to their personal preferences, there is legal text surrounding the issue.
We Europeans who criticize your Second Amendment may be shallow, as well, but we have usually at least read something about a "well-regulated militia" or the "right to keep and bear arms", so we understand where you're coming from, even if we think that's nuts.
[+] [-] tom_mellior|6 years ago|reply
> none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles of our Grundgesetz
... referring to "two or three" specific articles without providing a link, or at least the numbers so we can look them up, is not as useful as it could be.
[+] [-] burfog|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] 1e10|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monroviamonkey|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|6 years ago|reply
My two cents: maybe the memory should be longer for a few things, stealing a loaf of bread or smoking pot is quite different from murders. In many countries cold blooded murders give you a life sentence or death (either by the state--or victim's family members when the state does not act) so maybe this guy should have had the chance to file such an appeal.
[+] [-] precisioncoder|6 years ago|reply
Personally I think we should either rehibilitate and then forget in order to give them a chance to contribute to society, or keep them in prison. The idea of releasing people but then villifying them will basically just channel them back into the criminal system again. Studies have shown the best way to prevent crime is with reintegrating them socially. The biggest risk factors are:
"prior criminal history, lifestyle instability (unemployment, frequent moves), and negative peer associations"
The right to be forgotten would reduce two out of three of those risks.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/smrsk-fctrs...