Support NeoGAF

[Joni]

In the way that people have put reviews of sometimes business online?

A business is a business, a business is not a person. This is not the US. You could ask Yelp to censor if someone puts your actual name or private address on there.

Facebook puts people's information on the internet, Twitter does, blogs do, everyone does - and while all those things can legally still be on the internet in EU, Google can't link you to those things if someone successfully wipes their info. This law is brand new!

The law isn't new, the way Google has to apply it, is new. Information like Facebook that users have put themselves on the internet would probably not apply either, because they can remove it themselves.

It's specifically about search engines and how they make it easy to find info on people, they had to create a law for this!

It is a ruling on how Google should apply existing laws. Article 8 is way older, so Google should have obeyed it as long as they were in Europe.

 

[Kinitari]

A business is a business, a business is not a person. This is not the US. You could ask Yelp to censor if someone puts your actual name or private address on there.


The law isn't new, the way Google has to apply it, is new. Information like Facebook that users have put themselves on the internet would probably not apply either, because they can remove it themselves.


It is a ruling on how Google should apply existing laws.

In this context, a business can totally be a person. A massage therapist can be reviewed online, a contractor, a freelancer etc. These sorts of professions are reviewed and the business owners name is attached to these sorts of reviews.

You can make Facebook posts about other people, you can tweet about other people, you can blog about other people - these things aren't changing, and you can't request that these platforms remove said information.

The law is new, they try and specify what information could successfully be removed, but the criteria is vague. Your accusation that Google has been skirting privacy laws is baseless - and in fact if they share this info they still aren't, they are still allowed to link to this information, but only until a successful request for removal is placed. Again, this is a brand new law.

 

[Joni]

In this context, a business can totally be a person. A massage therapist can be reviewed online, a contractor, a freelancer etc. These sorts of professions are reviewed and the business owners name is attached to these sorts of reviews.

I can't speak for every European country, but the ones I know off still make a legal distinction between the 'company' and the private person. If you're an independent contractor, your job side is a business entity that is separate from yourself. For instance, taxes would be split into two different entities, one private person and one business.

You can make Facebook posts about other people, you can tweet about other people, you can blog about other people - these things aren't changing, and you can't request that these platforms remove said information.

Facebook posts are really hard to find on Google by the way. It also has a quite extensive system for reporting and requesting removal of content. The same goes for Twitter. For instance, Twitter has https://support.twitter.com/groups/...orting-private-information-posted-on-twitter#

The law is new, they try and specify what information could successfully be removed, but the criteria is vague. Your accusation that Google has been skirting privacy laws is baseless - and in fact if they share this info they still aren't, they are still allowed to link to this information, but only until a successful request for removal is placed. Again, this is a brand new law.

"An EU directive has the objective of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons (in particular the right to privacy) when personal data are processed, while removing obstacles to the free flow of such data" has existed way longer than this ruling. The ruling says Google needs to comply with the directive. It is not a new law, it is a ruling saying the directive has always applied to Google.

 

[Kinitari]

I can't speak for every European country, but the ones I know off still make a legal distinction between the 'company' and the private person. If you're an independent contractor, your job side is a business entity that is separate from yourself. For instance, taxes would be split into two different entities, one private person and one business.

This is aside from my point, what the legal distinction is might be irrelevant - there is no clear criteria on what can be removed. There are many attempting to remove negative reviews for their businesses linked to their names - and it's not really clear if this is allowed or not!

Facebook posts are really hard to find on Google by the way. It also has a quite extensive system for reporting and requesting removal of content. The same goes for Twitter. For instance, Twitter has https://support.twitter.com/groups/...orting-private-information-posted-on-twitter#

Again, aside from my point - there are tons of other platforms, some even native to the EU that potentially could share this information, many of them searchable by Google - they will not be forced to remove the content from their websites with a takedown request. This is my point - do you understand that?

"An EU directive has the objective of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons (in particular the right to privacy) when personal data are processed, while removing obstacles to the free flow of such data" has existed way longer than this ruling.

And Google has never disregarded the law - this law has never been applied to Google until today, through a new law proposal. It was never even applicable! Nobody told Google what they were supposed to do with a law like that until now. Do you at least admit that your earlier accusation that Google was disregarding EU law until now was absolutely baseless?

 

[Rocket Scientist]

It's about context and relevancy. Lets say you're a lawyer and a potential client googles your name, but the first thing Google will spit out is not your website, but a six year old newspaper article about a large party with a picture of you with underpants on your head. Completely irrelevant, but you probably just lost a client.

You say completely irrelevant and yet he lost a client who seemingly found it very relevant. If information is ''completely irrelevant'', the court should order the source to remove the information. Until I see a ruling like that, it is laughable to censor legitimate information in search engines. If the court is serious about information being irrelevant, it should immediately order the removal of source materials. The idea that you are allowed to come by information by chance but not on purpose is ridiculous.

 

[Joni]

This is aside from my point, what the legal distinction is might be irrelevant - there is no clear criteria on what can be removed. There are many attempting to remove negative reviews for their businesses linked to their names - and it's not really clear if this is allowed or not!

European Law makes the distinction between the business and the private person. It is only unclear if you're ignoring that difference.

Again, aside from my point - there are tons of other platforms, some even native to the EU that potentially could share this information, many of them searchable by Google - they will not be forced to remove the content from their websites with a takedown request. This is my point - do you understand that?

And it is possible to ask them to remove that information. As in the case listed in the OP, the guy also asked the paper to remove it. The court decided that initial printing was lawful. If they had decided otherwise, the site would be forced to remove that information too. They have never said this applies solely to Google. You're ignoring the fact the law already applies to every site. You can request removal of information and you can go to court to request the removal. This ruling isn't saying this only applies to Google. It is confirming to a national court that it also applies to Google. Do you understand THAT?

Whereas, in order to ensure that individuals are not deprived of the protection to which they are entitled under this Directive, any processing of personal data in the Community must be carried out in accordance with the law of one of the Member States; whereas, in this connection, processing carried out under the responsibility of a controller who is established in a Member State should be governed by the law of that State.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046&from=EN

And Google has never disregarded the law - this law has never been applied to Google until today, through a new law proposal.

It has always applied to Google. This part was always applicable to Google. The fact they didn't know that, doesn't absolve them of their responsibility. If you're in Europe, you follow European laws. It was a difficult case, that is true. It is why the national court asked for advice to the European court.

Whereas, in order to ensure that individuals are not deprived of the protection to which they are entitled under this Directive, any processing of personal data in the Community must be carried out in accordance with the law of one of the Member States; whereas, in this connection, processing carried out under the responsibility of a controller who is established in a Member State should be governed by the law of that State.

 

[syllogism]

You say completely irrelevant and yet he lost a client who seemingly found it very relevant. If information is ''completely irrelevant'', the court should order the source to remove the information. Until I see a ruling like that, it is laughable to censor legitimate information in search engines. If the court is serious about information being irrelevant, it should immediately order the removal of source materials. The idea that you are allowed to come by information by chance but not on purpose is ridiculous.

The issue is that Google is essentially becoming a very public and unregulated database of information that is considered private and sensitive. Even if you don't voluntarily post your private information, it may end up there anyway and there is nothing you can do about it as long as there was, briefly, a justification for it being there. The justification for wide availability may have an expiration date. I think it is a reasonable position to believe that just because there was a public interest in the sensitive information being very public (printed on a national paper) at specific time, does not mean it should be, for all eternity, be very publicly available to billions of Internet users. If this was a Government database rather than Google search, I think your perspective would be different. Google is indexing your whole life, attaching it your name and allowing everyone to browse it with no restrictions. If this wasn't the Internet I don't think we would even have this debate.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

No idea how this works in other European countries, but in Germany, arrest information is not public. The police only discloses gender and age of suspects, no names or photos.

Isn't that a better way to tackle it, if your concerned about those things? Have a habeas corpus kind of statue with releasing info.

Europeans consider privacy, personal freedom and dignity more important than freedom of information or the curiosity of the general public. And that's a good thing.

Not really because it gives far to much power to those who decide what information is accessible.

The issue is that Google is essentially becoming a very public and unregulated database of information that is considered private and sensitive. Even if you don't voluntarily post your private information, it may end up there anyway and there is nothing you can do about it as long as there was, briefly, a justification for it being there. The justification for wide availability may have an expiration date. I think it is a reasonable position to believe that just because there was a public interest in the sensitive information being very public (printed on a national paper) at specific time, does not mean it should be, for all eternity, be very publicly available to billions of Internet users. If this was a Government database rather than Google search, I think your perspective would be different. Google is indexing your whole life, attaching it your name and allowing everyone to browse it with no restrictions. If this wasn't the Internet I don't think we would even have this debate.

This is mindblowing people are talking about erasing history as being reasonable.

 

[syllogism]

Isn't that a better way to tackle it, if your concerned about those things? Have a habeas corpus kind of statue with releasing info.


Not really because it gives far to much power to those who decide what information is accessible.


This is mindblowing people are talking about erasing history as being reasonable.

It's not being erased. The information is still there and available, just not on the front page and in a database that is indexed by name.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It's not being erased. The information is still there and available, just not on the front page.

Censoring the index is removing the information from being accessible in any reasonable means.

Having 10 billion page book and removing the index. yeah its still there but nobody is gonna find it.

 

[syllogism]

Censoring the index is removing the information from being accessible in any reasonable means.

Having 10 billion page book and removing the index. yeah its still there but nobody is gonna find it.

The index isn't being removed, just specific entries containing private information in a database that is being indexed by name. What would be your opinion if it was the government indexing your life with no regulation and giving everyone in the world an unrestricted access to it? How about a website in Russia? Imagine it being just an index of personal information.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The index isn't being removed, just specific entries containing private information in a database that is being indexed by name. What would be your opinion if it was the government indexing your life with no regulation and giving everyone in the world an unrestricted access to it?

The specific indexed location is. They're ripping a page out of the index.

And I think there should be limits to indexed information, but public records are public records. I shouldn't be able to hide information that's public (like arrests, business records should be), that either the government through laws has deemed pubic or that has entered the public domain through me putting it on the internet.

I think the solution is again management of the data on the sites. You can prevent google from indexing it in the first place (though I think not indexing important info is a dangerous path to travel down).

 

[Kabouter]

So do some people here support a world where you are effectively constantly held hostage by the threat of information on anything you do, or have done, ending up in a permanent record that is freely and easily accessible by anyone without you being able to do anything about it?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So do some people here support a world where you are effectively constantly held hostage by the threat of information on anything you do, or have done, ending up in a permanent record that is freely and easily accessible by anyone without you being able to do anything about it?

This is inevitable tbh. You're not going to prevent this unless the information never enters the web or is partitioned away.

I think partitioning it away and preventing it from entering the web is a much better solution than censorship and deletion of the internet. For example, putting arrest records on a site that isn't indexed and deletes the info when the law says it must, or something like that if that's a goal you want. Facebook kind of does this. You can't search my page.

But traditional privacy will be constantly eroded away. Society is gonna have to adjust.

 

[syllogism]

The law of which country? Which court? Do you expect private individuals in one country to sue companies or even private individuals located on the other side of the world? What if instead of fully complying with the order they just host it elsewhere? Is this really the best way to limit access to the sensitive information? Why do you think Google is being forced to remove certain copyright infringing results from their index? The same reasons apply here.

Is traditional privacy eroding a good thing? If not, the society does not have to adjust unless there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The law of which country? Which court? Do you expect private individuals in one country to sue companies or even private individuals located on the other side of the world? What if instead of fully complying with the order they just host it elsewhere? Is this really the best way to limit access to the sensitive information? Why do you think Google is being forced to remove certain copyright infringing websites from their index? The same reasons apply here.

Is traditional privacy eroding a good thing? If not, the society does not have to adjust unless there is nothing we can do about it.

I don't think the bolded is a good decision either. I'm very pro free speech.

And to the last paragraph, I make no value judgement. But there is nothing you can do about it. The tech makes its inevitable.

 

[tfur]

The law of which country? Which court? Do you expect private individuals in one country to sue companies or even private individuals located on the other side of the world? What if instead of fully complying with the order they just host it elsewhere? Is this really the best way to limit access to the sensitive information? Why do you think Google is being forced to remove certain copyright infringing websites from their index? The same reasons apply here.

Is traditional privacy eroding a good thing? If not, the society does not have to adjust unless there is nothing we can do about it.

If there is something that is deemed private("irrelevant "), it should be addressed where it exists. Do we need global police to erase references to public information?

You are basically arguing for the right to put blinders on methods of tranfering information. It's intellectual and informational isolationism to suggest that I am forced to forget, or that I should curb/censor my ability to retain knowledge of an event.

 

[Cipherr]

So do some people here support a world where you are effectively constantly held hostage by the threat of information on anything you do, or have done, ending up in a permanent record that is freely and easily accessible by anyone without you being able to do anything about it?

If I were tinfoil hat enough to worry about this, I would probably seek restriction on the companies that are actually collecting and hosting that information, rather than ignoring them and lashing against the freaking search engines of the world.

Feel free to disagree.

 

[Joni]

I don't think the bolded is a good decision either. I'm very pro free speech.

And you're giving away all your other rights in trade for that free speech. But this has nothing to do with free speech, the government isn't stopping you from expressing your opinion. They're trying to protect your other rights. The EU government has been going on against tech giants in a crusade for privacy rights, for free choice of products and more.

If I were tinfoil hat enough to worry about this, I would probably seek restriction on the companies that are actually collecting and hosting that information, rather than ignoring them and lashing against the freaking search engines of the world.

Google is also collecting that information, but they're doing it without any of the restrictions their data sources follow.

 

[Suikoguy]

Was listening to NPR while out running errands, apparently this will only will apply to searches occurring in the EU. Anyone looking for the information being censored need only proxy to a US location. Furthermore, this will hold for a long time, since I don't see something similar being passed in the US.

Since it's only removing the index, it's really doing nothing other then censoring level 1 access of information.

The question NPR raised, will this cause Google to pre-censor results? Since the number of requests will be virtually impossible to handle. Google may just say "This is the best we can do, unless you want to pay per result removed".

 

[Kabouter]

If I were tinfoil hat enough to worry about this, I would probably seek restriction on the companies that are actually collecting and hosting that information, rather than ignoring them and lashing against the freaking search engines of the world.

Feel free to disagree.

First off, being affected by, say, a potential employer finding crap on you via a simple two second Google search has nothing to do with tinfoil hattery. As far as seeking restrictions against companies that are actually collecting and hosting that information, beyond actively blocking access to their domains for all users in your country (which is going quite a lot further than this), there isn't much a government can do against a site hosted in some random country to avoid just such restrictions as you suggest.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

First off, being affected by, say, a potential employer finding crap on you via a simple two second Google search has nothing to do with tinfoil hattery. As far as seeking restrictions against companies that are actually collecting and hosting that information, beyond actively blocking access to their domains for all users in your country (which is going quite a lot further than this), there isn't much a government can do against a site hosted in some random country to avoid just such restrictions as you suggest.

What kind of 'crap' are the finding out on you? Your arrests? Your criminal record? Bad Business deals? Why do you have the right to deny people access to public information. This isn't hiding your health records or social security number.

First off, being affected by, say, a potential employer finding crap on you via a simple two second Google search has nothing to do with tinfoil hattery. As far as seeking restrictions against companies that are actually collecting and hosting that information, beyond actively blocking access to their domains for all users in your country (which is going quite a lot further than this), there isn't much a government can do against a site hosted in some random country to avoid just such restrictions as you suggest.

Is it? Its for all intents and purposes blocking access to the information unless you already know its there.

And you're giving away all your other rights in trade for that free speech. But this has nothing to do with free speech, the government isn't stopping you from expressing your opinion. They're trying to protect your other rights. The EU government has been going on against tech giants in a crusade for privacy rights, for free choice of products and more.

I think freedom of expression and access to information is one of the preeminent rights (In my country we codified it as among the first personal right in our constitution, right after the right to believe what you want), above the right to not be embarrassed by your past the fact people think embarrassment is worth protecting with a censorship regime is scary.

 

[Joni]

What kind of 'crap' are the finding out on you? Your arrests? Your criminal record? Bad Business deals?

A picture of you drunk in a journalistic piece for some festival.

I think freedom of expression and access to information is one of the preeminent rights (In my country we codified it as among the first personal right in our constitution, right after the right to believe what you want), above the right to not be embarrassed by your past the fact people think embarrassment is worth protecting with a censorship regime is scary.

A regime where you lose all rights to your personal information is worse.

 

[syllogism]

As long as you can justify putting those rights in specific circumstances above the competing rights, that's fine.

 

[Kabouter]

What kind of 'crap' are the finding out on you? Your arrests? Your criminal record? Bad Business deals?

Well, there wouldn't be anything to find on me, but in general it could literally be anything ranging from being suspected in a felony, to drunk photos of you years ago, to as minor a thing as a dumb tweet a person once sent out into the world. Even the smallest thing can have relatively severe consequences if it ends up in a permanent easily accessible public record.

Is it? Its for all intents and purposes blocking access to the information unless you already know its there.

Yeah, I would say that it is given that you are completely denying access, it's certainly going further, so it's a mystery to me why anyone opposed to this right to be forgotten case would actually prefer that option.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A picture of you drunk in a journalistic piece for some festival.

And that should be inaccessible to people? I'd assume it was in a public place and the journalist had every right to take it and publish it. And why is the court saying the newspaper can publish it but I can't search for it?

Would you ban people from talking about your previously embarrassing escapades? If I tell your boss that I saw you drunk and naked running around town should I be punished? How is that different than the photo, and how to you delineate that standard?

Well, there wouldn't be anything to find on me, but in general it could literally be anything ranging from being suspected in a felony, to drunk photos of you years ago, to as minor a thing as a dumb tweet a person once sent out into the world. Even the smallest thing can have relatively severe consequences if it ends up in a permanent easily accessible public record.

See above. Can we ban gossip? Why do you have the right not to be embarrassed by others? Why can't I share something I experienced because you don't want me to?

Why should you be able to censor your public tweets? There's the private option. And if you allowed me to view that private tweet can I not tell others what I saw?

Yeah, I would say that it is given that you are completely denying access, it's certainly going further, so it's a mystery to me why anyone opposed to this right to be forgotten case would actually prefer that option.

I support neither.

 

[Raonak]

While the ruling sounds like a good one, I feel things like internet privacy is one of those things that's gonna be harder and harder to maintain, and that it's ultimately a fruitless endeveour, much like piracy. It's an inherient property of a free internet.
And that we as a society need to become smarter about the transparency the internet brings, and give less of a fuck about what other people do in their spare time.

You can only go so far until we start reaching cencorship. which this borderline is, it's only a matter of time before more powerful people try abusing this power.

 

[Joni]

And that should be inaccessible to people? I'd assume it was in a public place and the journalist had every right to take it and publish it. And why is the court saying the newspaper can publish it but I can't search for it?

You should have the right make it disappear. Otherwise we can just start linking all information on some profile. For instance, how would you like it if people found your NeoGAF history as the first thing about you. You posted it on the internet so you don't want it private.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You should have the right make it disappear. Otherwise we can just start linking all information on some profile. For instance, how would you like it if people found your NeoGAF history as the first thing about you. You posted it on the internet so you don't want it private.

I wouldn't like it but I don't think I have the right to prevent other people from using public information. I've made it available. I think social norms are the right response not government censorship.

What do you mean you have the right to make it disappear. The fact that your in some other persons photo means that you have the right to dictate how that person uses that photo? Seriously this is Orwellian. just make things disappear from the past.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

And that we as a society need to become smarter about the transparency the internet brings, and give less of a fuck about what other people do in their spare time.

Unfortunately, even despite being very careful about what you post online, a lot of falsely incriminating stuff can still surface and you can't tell the dude who decided not to hire you based on it that he should give less of a fuck and hire you anyway.

 

[syllogism]

It seems to me that you essentially consider nothing private APKmetsfan, because to some degree everything about you is public, not just what's on the Internet. Indeed, it being on the Internet is a completely arbitrary distinction. Based on your posts here you wouldn't have a problem with someone collecting everything about you and putting it online. Everything you have ever said in public, all your semi-public records, your whole biography

 

[Joni]

I wouldn't like it but I don't think I have the right to prevent other people from using public information. I've made it available.

You have made it available for use on a certain medium in a certain time. What right does someone else have of spreading it further? Do you think Facebook for example should have the right to give away your photos? You posted them on there.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

It seems to me that you essentially consider nothing private APKmetsfan, because to some degree everything about you is public, not just what's on the Internet. Indeed, it being on the Internet is a completely arbitrary distinction. Based on your posts here you wouldn't have a problem with someone collecting everything about you and putting it online. Everything you have ever said in public, all your semi-public records, your whole biography

I'd have a huge problem with it. And I think sites can set rules and contracts with regard to information. We have TOSs for a reason. But I don't think the government can come in and set what is acceptable and not. The EU isn't even arguing for that it says the information can stay but it can't be accessed. that's a weird distinction and I think the fact they don't say the information need to be taken down is an admission they think that the information isn't protected from what your describing.

I don't think everything is public, I just think i can't censor other people

You have made it available for use on a certain medium in a certain time. What right does someone else have of spreading it further? Do you think Facebook for example should have the right to give away your photos? You posted them on there.

and https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/
no? but facebook and I have an agreement about that. https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

 

[Kabouter]

I'd have a huge problem with it. And I think sites can set rules and contracts with regard to information. We have TOSs for a reason. But I don't think the government can come in and set what is acceptable and not. The EU isn't even arguing for that it says the information can stay but it can't be accessed. that's a weird distinction and I think the fact they don't say the information need to be taken down is an admission they think that the information isn't protected from what your describing.

I don't think everything is public, I just think i can't censor other people

So you would consider any privacy laws, online or not, to be the government overstepping its bounds?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So you would consider any privacy laws, online or not, to be the government overstepping its bounds?

no. where do I claim that? there's certain information that I think should be keep private, things like health, non-public financial information, etc. But if I tell someone, hey I have cancer then its not private. A nurse leaking that information is different.

 

[Joni]

https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/
no? but facebook and I have an agreement about that. https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

You said yourself you don't have the rights to prevent someone from spreading stuff you posted in a public space. So if someone was to spread that information, you think you have no rights to stop it.

I wouldn't like it but I don't think I have the right to prevent other people from using public information. I've made it available.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You said yourself you don't have the rights to prevent someone from spreading stuff you posted in a public space. So if someone was to spread that information, you think you have no rights to stop it.

well if someone I shared the photo with goes and shares it, I think I'm over stepping my bounds to tell the government to force them to stop. I've share it with them. Its different if someone hacks in or facebook goes and does it on their own.

 

[syllogism]

well if someone I shared the photo with goes and shares it, I think I'm over stepping my bounds to tell the government to force them to stop. I've share it with them. Its different if someone hacks in.

But you just said you would have a huge problem with someone sharing everything semi-public about you and putting it online?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But you just said you would have a huge problem with someone sharing everything semi-public about you and putting it online?

personally yeah!

 

[Joni]

well if someone I shared the photo with goes and shares it, I think I'm over stepping my bounds to tell the government to force them to stop. I've share it with them. Its different if someone hacks in or facebook goes and does it on their own.

You have said yourself it is inevitable the information you posted somewhere on the internet, so for instance Facebook, is spread beyond your control because you shared it on a public medium. You should have that control, that should be your right. You clearly have problems with that being spread, but you think you shouldn't have the right to stop it? That is backwards mentality. Most people in society would have a problem with it if it happened to them. That is society saying this ruling is correct.

 

[Cipherr]

First off, being affected by, say, a potential employer finding crap on you via a simple two second Google search has nothing to do with tinfoil hattery.

No it has to do with you being ridiculous about the entire situation and lying blame lazily on a search engine. Asking to have all search engines held accountable for an employer googling you and deciding not to hire you because you had one to many a year ago is as stupid as making a law against telephone interviews because an employer might refuse to hire you if he suspects you are a minority due to your accent.

In both of those cases the problem isn't the damn search engine dude, its the employer being a judgemental asshole who probably shouldn't have the position they are working in. You don't 'fix' that problem by starting a slow creep of censorship to the internet.

You have said yourself it is inevitable the information you posted somewhere on the internet, so for instance Facebook, is spread beyond your control because you shared it on a public medium. You should have that control, that should be your right.

Shoulda coulda woulda. Information can spread VERBALLY beyond your control. Thats life, and nothing is ever going to stop it. It really just seems people are upset that it can move much more efficiently thanks to technology. I hate to say it, but you are fighting a losing battle. With the advancement of technology these things will happen regardless. The same miracles of advancement that allow you to have wikipedia in your pocket is going to also allow information to flow and move faster than word of mouth.

Edit: Im not saying it doesn't have its downsides. What Im saying is that the genie is out of the bottle, its not going back in, and the benefits far outweigh the negatives. When I think about stuff like Egypt a few years back and how this free flowing of information benefitted it so greatly I seriously get upset that people are so short sighted and insist on trying to force something thats hopeless anyway. You are going to have to live with the dick pics you accidentally tweeted under your profile attached to your facebook.. Sorry

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You have said yourself it is inevitable the information you posted somewhere on the internet, so for instance Facebook, is spread beyond your control because you shared it on a public medium. You should have that control, that should be your right. You clearly have problems with that being spread, but you think you shouldn't have the right to stop it? That is backwards mentality.

How do I exercise that right? By censoring other peoples ability to share information?

And how is that backwards, I have my personal opinions and morality and then I have the recognition of the rights of others. Its the same thing as other speech, I don't like people insulting me or talking behind my back but I don't get the government to force them not to.

No it has to do with you being ridiculous about the entire situation and lying blame lazily on a search engine. Asking to have all search engines held accountable for an employer googling you and deciding not to hire you because you had one to many a year ago is as stupid as making a law against telephone interviews because an employer might refuse to hire you if he suspects you are a minority due to your accent.

In both of those cases the problem isn't the damn search engine dude, its the employer being a judgemental asshole who probably shouldn't have the position they are working in. You don't 'fix' that problem by starting a slow creep of censorship to the internet.

Do we mandate no names on resumes because you might have a weird name, no in person interviews because the person might be a racist? Do we mandate anonymized interviews?

Shoulda coulda woulda. Information can spread VERBALLY beyond your control. Thats life, and nothing is ever going to stop it. It really just seems people are upset that it can move much more efficiently thanks to technology. I hate to say it, but you are fighting a losing battle. With the advancement of technology these things will happen regardless. The same miracles of advancement that allow you to have wikipedia in your pocket is going to also allow information to flow and move faster than word of mouth.

Exactly my point. Where is the legal difference between verbal and visual information?

 

[tfur]

Well, there wouldn't be anything to find on me, but in general it could literally be anything ranging from being suspected in a felony, to drunk photos of you years ago, to as minor a thing as a dumb tweet a person once sent out into the world. Even the smallest thing can have relatively severe consequences if it ends up in a permanent easily accessible public record.


Yeah, I would say that it is given that you are completely denying access, it's certainly going further, so it's a mystery to me why anyone opposed to this right to be forgotten case would actually prefer that option.

Why is it a preferable option? There are many reasons.

Keep it local. If there is something that is truly private and not just "irrelevant", let the locals decide. Certainly, if there is something that is deemed private, we don't delude ourselves with indexes, but instead go to the source.

Isolate the censorship. Let it stay in that state. Let those places devolve into informational isolationism. At the same time, the rest of the world can still operate in transparency.

This is just attacking a medium/technology of information flow. It is technically (search engines) not where this privacy idea belongs.

 

[Joni]

How do I exercise that right? By censoring other peoples ability to share information?

And how is that backwards, I have my personal opinions and morality and then I have the recognition of the rights of others. Its the same thing as other speech, I don't like people insulting me or talking behind my back but I don't get the government to force them not to.

So you're saying screw the right of privacy so the freedom of information isn't impacted? You too are screwing over one of the personal rights of humanity.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So you're saying screw the right of privacy so the freedom of information isn't impacted? You too are screwing over one of the personal rights of humanity.

Your not answering the question, how do I exercise the right of privacy? Do I violate their rights?

I believe in the right to privacy, and I've never repudiated it.

 

[Joni]

Your not answering the question, how do I exercise the right of privacy? Do I violate their rights?

Like we have done all the time. By requesting it be taken down because they're spreading stuff that doesn't belong to them, your personal information.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Like we have done all the time. By requesting it be taken down because they're spreading stuff that doesn't belong to them, your personal information.

And if they say no? And again I think personal information like health and financial is different. Drunk pictures they took? or public records the law has put in the public domain? how are they mine?

 

[tfur]

Like we have done all the time. By requesting it be taken down because they're spreading stuff that doesn't belong to them, your personal information.

You mean like public records that are not private and part of history, but just arbitrarily deemed "irrelevant?"

 

[Joni]

And if they say no? And again I think personal information like health and financial is different. Drunk pictures they took? how are they mine?

The photos aren't yours, but your face is. If you are the main subject of a photo and not someone in a crowd, the taker of the photo doesn't have any rights when it comes to publishing the photo in most countries of the European Union. Again, one of the European privacy laws guaruanteed by their human rights convention.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

You mean like public records that are not private and part of history, but just arbitrarily deemed "irrelevant?"

Like records that are published or processed by a controller that has no right to publish them, like Google does with their cache.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The photos aren't yours, but your face is. If you are the main subject of a photo and not someone in a crowd, the taker of the photo doesn't have any rights when it comes to publishing the photo in most countries of the European Union. Again, one of the European privacy laws guaruanteed by their human rights convention.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements

Well I think your missing a lot of the exceptions and text of those restrictions and how they would apply. And secondly I think the EU is pretty bad when it comes to freedom of expression a lot of the times. I understand their history and trepidation when it comes to privacy but I think they've moved far to much in the way of censorship.

Sure that's their right as sovereign countries but I don't think its good.