Actions based on right to be forgotten don't affect what you're allowed to know or what you tell individuals, they affect what you're allowed to publish to the entire world. Much like publishing a photo of someone; sometimes you need permission.
This is a poor analogy. There is no particular reason to assign someone priveleges over the public facts of their life for example convictions trials misdeeds. In fact by definition no evil doer would ever give such permission.
Would you ask a rapist or their victim for permission to discuss the crime?
RTBF isn't ownership of information about self it is a privelege for villains to censor their victims and the general public.
Presumably if google posted a list of everything they delisted it would defeat the purpose without such a list I cannot easily determine the nature of the content delisted.
The daily mail claims articles on Josef Fritzl a man who kept his daughter in a dungeon for 24 years and Tory MP Jonathan Djanogly who hired individuals to spy on fellow party members were effected but years after the complaint about them being delisted they are now findable on google again.
Google doesn't have a great history of doing the right thing with automated moderation. It's entirely likely that a script could easily deny a request to censor trivialities while covering the crimes of a pedophile without a human being in the loop.
More recently someone convinced google to delist the url
Their list of articles on abuse of the right to be forgotten for maximum irony.
Then there is Thomas Goolnik who is using RTBF to hide his efforts to hide his efforts. That is to say he is using RTBF to delist articles about him misusing the RTBF It seems the start of the chain of forgetting is Goolnik defrauding people out of a million dollars. Something that might be worth knowing if you were participating in any endeavor he was involved in.
The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed.
Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does.
The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed.
IIRC it was a private person who wanted to remove an article about his house being foreclosed due to his debts. His request to remove the article was not granted since the article was lawful, but the court agreed that google should stop pointing to that article since it was like 15-20 years old and the man had paid of his dept and his house was no longer foreclosed.
What do you find villainous about that?
Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does.
The right to be forgotten has nothing to do with publishing records of something. It is about search engines not pointing to something published in the past that can have an adverse effect on somebody today while the published information is irrelevant to anybody today ...
Publishing Names and Addresses of accused persons and their Mugshots is a great example. Publishing that information is relevant since the person is being accused at the time of publishing. A years later the person is found innocent. It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine but can have an adverse affect on the individual if he is looking for a job or whatever.
For that very reason a convicted criminal in my country (in the EU) can get a document saying that they are not a convicted criminal after they paid their dues to the society. The point is that people make mistakes and there is no good reason (in the very wast majority of cases) that those mistakes should follow them their whole lives. The point is rehabilitation not eternal punishment. That is a reason why the right to be forgotten exists.
For that very reason a convicted criminal in my country (in the EU) can get a document saying that they are not a convicted criminal after they paid their dues to the society.
That’s an interesting phrasing. Even you (who seems to support the policy) describe the convicted criminal as a convicted criminal, yet they’re able to get a piece of paper that says they aren’t one.
Does everyone have to produce such a paper routinely in life, or is this a case of “hi, I’m @sokoloff and, even though you didn’t ask, I’d like you to read this paper which says I’m totally not a convicted criminal”?
“A, are you a convicted criminal?” “No.”
“B, are you a convicted criminal?” “No.”
“C, are you a convicted criminal?” “This piece of paper says I’m not.”
That’s an interesting phrasing. Even you (who seems to support the policy) describe the convicted criminal as a convicted criminal, yet they’re able to get a piece of paper that says they aren’t one.
They can get that paper after they payed their dues to society (served their time).
Does everyone have to produce such a paper routinely in life
Not routinely but I don't think anybody goes through their life without ever needing that paper. It is required for a vast variety of government programs and some jobs also require it. Working in IT I had to get it a few times when applying for jobs in private sector.
It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine.
"Isn't particularly relevant" according to whom? Relevance in the eye of the beholder.
Comments
Without making a value judgment either way: the right to be informed is inseparable from the risk of being misinformed.
What does a "right to be informed" mean, exactly?
Actions based on right to be forgotten don't affect what you're allowed to know or what you tell individuals, they affect what you're allowed to publish to the entire world. Much like publishing a photo of someone; sometimes you need permission.
This is a poor analogy. There is no particular reason to assign someone priveleges over the public facts of their life for example convictions trials misdeeds. In fact by definition no evil doer would ever give such permission.
Would you ask a rapist or their victim for permission to discuss the crime?
RTBF isn't ownership of information about self it is a privelege for villains to censor their victims and the general public.
This is repeated every time that the RTBF is mentioned yet none has ever given an example of RTBF being abused. Can you give an example?
Presumably if google posted a list of everything they delisted it would defeat the purpose without such a list I cannot easily determine the nature of the content delisted.
The daily mail claims articles on Josef Fritzl a man who kept his daughter in a dungeon for 24 years and Tory MP Jonathan Djanogly who hired individuals to spy on fellow party members were effected but years after the complaint about them being delisted they are now findable on google again.
Google doesn't have a great history of doing the right thing with automated moderation. It's entirely likely that a script could easily deny a request to censor trivialities while covering the crimes of a pedophile without a human being in the loop.
More recently someone convinced google to delist the url
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=right+to+be+forgotten
Their list of articles on abuse of the right to be forgotten for maximum irony.
Then there is Thomas Goolnik who is using RTBF to hide his efforts to hide his efforts. That is to say he is using RTBF to delist articles about him misusing the RTBF It seems the start of the chain of forgetting is Goolnik defrauding people out of a million dollars. Something that might be worth knowing if you were participating in any endeavor he was involved in.
The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed.
Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does.
IIRC it was a private person who wanted to remove an article about his house being foreclosed due to his debts. His request to remove the article was not granted since the article was lawful, but the court agreed that google should stop pointing to that article since it was like 15-20 years old and the man had paid of his dept and his house was no longer foreclosed.
What do you find villainous about that?
The right to be forgotten has nothing to do with publishing records of something. It is about search engines not pointing to something published in the past that can have an adverse effect on somebody today while the published information is irrelevant to anybody today ...
Publishing Names and Addresses of accused persons and their Mugshots is a great example. Publishing that information is relevant since the person is being accused at the time of publishing. A years later the person is found innocent. It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine but can have an adverse affect on the individual if he is looking for a job or whatever.
For that very reason a convicted criminal in my country (in the EU) can get a document saying that they are not a convicted criminal after they paid their dues to the society. The point is that people make mistakes and there is no good reason (in the very wast majority of cases) that those mistakes should follow them their whole lives. The point is rehabilitation not eternal punishment. That is a reason why the right to be forgotten exists.
That’s an interesting phrasing. Even you (who seems to support the policy) describe the convicted criminal as a convicted criminal, yet they’re able to get a piece of paper that says they aren’t one.
Does everyone have to produce such a paper routinely in life, or is this a case of “hi, I’m @sokoloff and, even though you didn’t ask, I’d like you to read this paper which says I’m totally not a convicted criminal”?
“A, are you a convicted criminal?” “No.”
“B, are you a convicted criminal?” “No.”
“C, are you a convicted criminal?” “This piece of paper says I’m not.”
They can get that paper after they payed their dues to society (served their time).
Not routinely but I don't think anybody goes through their life without ever needing that paper. It is required for a vast variety of government programs and some jobs also require it. Working in IT I had to get it a few times when applying for jobs in private sector.
"Isn't particularly relevant" according to whom? Relevance in the eye of the beholder.