I'd like to bring up the idea of a Jubilee, an ancient idea that might be a guide for how to approach this problem again.
Basically, in the old days, people were able to fuck up their circumstances permanently because they lived in a small village where everyone ended up knowing everything.
Because that's obviously not conducive to a well-functioning society, everyone agreed to forgive and forget (debts at that time) every so many years.
This might be a reasonable way to handle our current data congestion problems. What if companies agreed to flush their user data every ? years?
edit: this isn't an explicit plan, just something to chew on. Also it doesn't address Google's issue, so it's kind of a distraction to the thread i admit.
I'm not sure you understand the issue here because on the face of it you suggest that we burn our historical record (newspapers and obliterate website) every 7 years.
The issue here isn't that Google has some information on you that leaks and if Google doesn't have this information then it won't leak.
The issue is that there is a web page, Google indexes that web page (because that's the purpose of a web search engine), someone doesn't like what that page says about him and now they have a way to ask Google to remove that page from Google's index.
It's basically decentralized censorship with frighteningly low standards for removal of information, nonexistent oversight and apparently no penalty for trying to abuse the system.
There is no solution to the "problem" that doesn't involve heavy-handed censorship.
I know what you're getting at, but I have a hard time considering it 'heavy-handed public surveillance' when the info was already able to be found via Google in the first place. It's also not like the NSA (or anybody else) is just going to magically delete all the information they have stored when it can't be found via Google anymore. It's censorship at worst and just not that effective for it's purpose at best.
That's actually a pretty clever workaround for some of the issues, but there are others that it does not address.
My main argument against the ""right" to be forgotten" has always been web forums. Think of a European version of HN. Think of a really prolific and insightful contributor to that site. They invoke this law, and EUHN is forced to kill all the posts they ever made.
Context of entire discussion threads will be obliterated.
It doesn't have to be a European HN, just HN (as accessed from the EU) would maybe be enough. It depends on whether HN is said to be "operating in Europe" or not. I don't really get how it should be enforced, but being on an American server doesn't protect you from EU (or Chinese or Brazilian etc.) law.
That's a busted myth. Just point the DNS entries for HN to the trash can, and redirect all IP traffic to the correct IP address to same trash can. You'd need a VPN.
7 years is too short a period in modern times, as even digital projects tend to benefit a lot from the old data and it's even more true for ambitious projects like rail or space.
Even an average mortgage in western societies is 20+ years so you have to remember for that long at least.
And 'forgetting' after 20 or 30 years isn't going to help, like it didn't in the case of the original Spaniard who caused the ruling.
Interesting idea. How would you define "user data"? For example would it include a Wikipedia article you wrote, a news article mentioning you, an email you received...
If you define user data in a more limited sense, I don't think it would satisfy the proponents of the right to be forgotten.
Comments
I'd like to bring up the idea of a Jubilee, an ancient idea that might be a guide for how to approach this problem again.
Basically, in the old days, people were able to fuck up their circumstances permanently because they lived in a small village where everyone ended up knowing everything.
Because that's obviously not conducive to a well-functioning society, everyone agreed to forgive and forget (debts at that time) every so many years.
This might be a reasonable way to handle our current data congestion problems. What if companies agreed to flush their user data every ? years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)
edit: this isn't an explicit plan, just something to chew on. Also it doesn't address Google's issue, so it's kind of a distraction to the thread i admit.
I'm not sure you understand the issue here because on the face of it you suggest that we burn our historical record (newspapers and obliterate website) every 7 years.
The issue here isn't that Google has some information on you that leaks and if Google doesn't have this information then it won't leak.
The issue is that there is a web page, Google indexes that web page (because that's the purpose of a web search engine), someone doesn't like what that page says about him and now they have a way to ask Google to remove that page from Google's index.
It's basically decentralized censorship with frighteningly low standards for removal of information, nonexistent oversight and apparently no penalty for trying to abuse the system.
There is no solution to the "problem" that doesn't involve heavy-handed censorship.
That's quite a stretch to suggest it won't leak. How about other search engines? How about websites that cache Google's own results and caching?
So your counter-proposal is heavy-handed public surveillance...
I know what you're getting at, but I have a hard time considering it 'heavy-handed public surveillance' when the info was already able to be found via Google in the first place. It's also not like the NSA (or anybody else) is just going to magically delete all the information they have stored when it can't be found via Google anymore. It's censorship at worst and just not that effective for it's purpose at best.
That's actually a pretty clever workaround for some of the issues, but there are others that it does not address.
My main argument against the ""right" to be forgotten" has always been web forums. Think of a European version of HN. Think of a really prolific and insightful contributor to that site. They invoke this law, and EUHN is forced to kill all the posts they ever made.
Context of entire discussion threads will be obliterated.
It doesn't have to be a European HN, just HN (as accessed from the EU) would maybe be enough. It depends on whether HN is said to be "operating in Europe" or not. I don't really get how it should be enforced, but being on an American server doesn't protect you from EU (or Chinese or Brazilian etc.) law.
What? If the law is unenforceable, you are de-facto protected.
Watch:
Kim Jong Un and Bhumibol Adulyadej are both complete tossers.
I just committed a crime in two nations. What will the effect to HN and myself be? Absolutely nothing.
They'd enforce it by banning the site from the EU netspace.
The internet responds to censorship as damage and routes around it.
That's a busted myth. Just point the DNS entries for HN to the trash can, and redirect all IP traffic to the correct IP address to same trash can. You'd need a VPN.
7 years is too short a period in modern times, as even digital projects tend to benefit a lot from the old data and it's even more true for ambitious projects like rail or space. Even an average mortgage in western societies is 20+ years so you have to remember for that long at least. And 'forgetting' after 20 or 30 years isn't going to help, like it didn't in the case of the original Spaniard who caused the ruling.
Interesting idea. How would you define "user data"? For example would it include a Wikipedia article you wrote, a news article mentioning you, an email you received...
If you define user data in a more limited sense, I don't think it would satisfy the proponents of the right to be forgotten.
Sorry, but it's ridiculous and extremely sad, people even talk and give dignity to the idea of deleting everything every n years.
(Yes, free talk about everything, of course, but it's very sad state of affairs.)
And delete everyone's wikipedia article? And all the blogs and pictures?
I don't think things like this is the right solution to the problem, at best it is a workaround.
Maybe we should instead not have ancient (and modern) prejudices.