8 ms·

I also agree with the right to be forgotten principle. However regarding its current implementation, I don't necessarily agree with the fact that private entit

by seren 11y ago

I also agree with the right to be forgotten principle. However regarding its current implementation, I don't necessarily agree with the fact that private entities are the one judging the requests (and they never asked for it!). If it is some sort of legal requirement, in my opinion, it should be reviewed by some kind of judge, administrative body or peers, that would apply consistently the rules. Finally regarding the EU vs Global application of the rule, I have to side with Google : you can't comply globally with every specific request from every country or sensibility, because it would mean banning a lot of things (from blasphemy, homosexuality to various disputed historical events, or territories...). I can't see that working practically.

icebraining 11y ago
The EU isn't asking Google to block it globally, it's asking Google to block it to all of the EU, regardless of domain. The fact that Google is unable or unwilling to filter Google.com results for particular countries is not the EU's problem.
- toyg 11y ago
  That's not how the internet work, and you know it. If the only thing standing between me and an uncensored google is a cheap vpn, then the French Courts are meaningless.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I wish people behind copyright law would figure that out too, but alas...
  - ddoolin 11y ago
    And they should be, in this case. Why should their request be propagated globally when they're (+ the EU, I guess) the only ones clamoring for it? But really the only thing standing between you and an uncensored search is a trip to bing(|duckduckgo|yahoo|etc).com, rather than google.com.
grp 11y ago
It's working pratically in the case of DMCA... Am I not the owner of my privacy? My digital life isn't copyrighted? It's weird.
- kuschku 11y ago
  That’s an interesting idea. Just claim copyright on your name and then DMCA the fuck out of all these sites, including Google. You get the same effect as the right to be forgotten (probably even more disruptive, as this solution also works for companies) but Google has to apply it internationally. And, the worst thing, many companies actually use DMCA to ban bad reviews already.
  - narrowrail 11y ago
    The DMCA is relevant in the US only, so I don't think that's going to work. Moreover, one cannot simply, "claim copyright on your name." It just doesn't work that way.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      The funny thing of the DMCA is, that, due to Safe Harbor laws, it applies to all companies in the US and EU, and they have to take it down internationally. Yes, surely it doesn’t work that way, but it’s DMCA. Companies are using it to take down everything with "Pixels" in name, it’s not hard to abuse it.
nthcolumn 11y ago
QUESTION: Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?
- icebraining 11y ago
  Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have. *EDIT: wrong word
  - V-2 11y ago
    That doesn't really answer the question, does it
    - netrus 11y ago
      But isn't it obvious why people might benefit from such a right? If you are uncomfortable with something in your past (not all too uncommon), baam, you benefit. The only interesting question is, if this right should stand above free speech, free trade, etc. There are good arguments for both views.
      - V-2 11y ago
        Still this wasn't an answer :) And no it's not that obvious to me. While some people certainly would benefit, it doesn't mean that all of them should get this benefit, and some other people would lose on that. In a nutshell - if someone gains a "right to be forgotten", you're losing the "right to remember".
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    That's why people may have such rights, not why they should.
    - samastur 11y ago
      Nope, that's pretty much all it takes. Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Or can you suggest a better authority to define them?
chappi42 11y ago
Why wouldn't you (Google) be able to comply globally? And as I understand it, it wouldn't mean banning, as you mentioned, blasphemy, homosexuality etc. but it's the right to be forgotten for a natural person. E.g. ask to remove certain statements about oneself (in case you are an 'unremarkable' person). Of course this all is not black and white and details have to be discussed / fighted about.

by seren 11y ago

icebraining 11y ago

The EU isn't asking Google to block it globally, it's asking Google to block it to all of the EU, regardless of domain. The fact that Google is unable or unwilling to filter Google.com results for particular countries is not the EU's problem.

toyg 11y ago
That's not how the internet work, and you know it. If the only thing standing between me and an uncensored google is a cheap vpn, then the French Courts are meaningless.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I wish people behind copyright law would figure that out too, but alas...
- ddoolin 11y ago
  And they should be, in this case. Why should their request be propagated globally when they're (+ the EU, I guess) the only ones clamoring for it? But really the only thing standing between you and an uncensored search is a trip to bing(|duckduckgo|yahoo|etc).com, rather than google.com.

grp 11y ago

It's working pratically in the case of DMCA... Am I not the owner of my privacy? My digital life isn't copyrighted? It's weird.

kuschku 11y ago
That’s an interesting idea. Just claim copyright on your name and then DMCA the fuck out of all these sites, including Google. You get the same effect as the right to be forgotten (probably even more disruptive, as this solution also works for companies) but Google has to apply it internationally. And, the worst thing, many companies actually use DMCA to ban bad reviews already.
- narrowrail 11y ago
  The DMCA is relevant in the US only, so I don't think that's going to work. Moreover, one cannot simply, "claim copyright on your name." It just doesn't work that way.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    The funny thing of the DMCA is, that, due to Safe Harbor laws, it applies to all companies in the US and EU, and they have to take it down internationally. Yes, surely it doesn’t work that way, but it’s DMCA. Companies are using it to take down everything with "Pixels" in name, it’s not hard to abuse it.

nthcolumn 11y ago

QUESTION: Why should you have 'the right to be forgotten'?

icebraining 11y ago
Technically, because the EU countries are sovereign and can decide what rights their own citizens should have. *EDIT: wrong word
- V-2 11y ago
  That doesn't really answer the question, does it
  - netrus 11y ago
    But isn't it obvious why people might benefit from such a right? If you are uncomfortable with something in your past (not all too uncommon), baam, you benefit. The only interesting question is, if this right should stand above free speech, free trade, etc. There are good arguments for both views.
    - V-2 11y ago
      Still this wasn't an answer :) And no it's not that obvious to me. While some people certainly would benefit, it doesn't mean that all of them should get this benefit, and some other people would lose on that. In a nutshell - if someone gains a "right to be forgotten", you're losing the "right to remember".
- ikeboy 11y ago
  That's why people may have such rights, not why they should.
  - samastur 11y ago
    Nope, that's pretty much all it takes. Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Or can you suggest a better authority to define them?

chappi42 11y ago

Why wouldn't you (Google) be able to comply globally? And as I understand it, it wouldn't mean banning, as you mentioned, blasphemy, homosexuality etc. but it's the right to be forgotten for a natural person. E.g. ask to remove certain statements about oneself (in case you are an 'unremarkable' person). Of course this all is not black and white and details have to be discussed / fighted about.