7 ms·

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?
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Again, that's how you know what rights people in fact have. If you want to decide whether people should have a right, the law is irrelevant. That's an ethical question, not a legal one. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed.
      - samastur 11y ago
        I agree with the last sentence, but I wasn't making a legalistic argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the difference between us is that you see ethics as something that "lives" outside of society and I don't. Ethics are not one or universally shared so societies themselves decide which ethical norms are shared widely enough to form foundations for laws etc. So right can be any feasible privilege that is widely enough shared.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        How does your model make sense of such statements as "we should have more freedom of speech"? If what should happen is defined by what's already law, then isn't the law by definition already what should be?
        marrs 11y ago
        Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed. Are you sure about this? I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. If what should happen is defined by what's already law... I don't think that's being argued.
        ikeboy 11y ago
tremon 11y ago
Because all your ancestors had it. It's a natural right, which stems from the abundance of new information generated every minute (and the brain's incapacity to contain all of it) and the inability to keep detailed records immediately accessible. That situation has changed with the combination of web 2.0 and search engines, so now we need laws to enforce the old, natural situation while we (as a society) work out in which direction we want to go.

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?
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    >Society decides itself what rights its members have which is why they are not the same everywhere. Again, that's how you know what rights people in fact have. If you want to decide whether people should have a right, the law is irrelevant. That's an ethical question, not a legal one. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed.
    - samastur 11y ago
      I agree with the last sentence, but I wasn't making a legalistic argument. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the difference between us is that you see ethics as something that "lives" outside of society and I don't. Ethics are not one or universally shared so societies themselves decide which ethical norms are shared widely enough to form foundations for laws etc. So right can be any feasible privilege that is widely enough shared.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        How does your model make sense of such statements as "we should have more freedom of speech"? If what should happen is defined by what's already law, then isn't the law by definition already what should be?
        marrs 11y ago
        Because "we should have more freedom of speech" is not a universal truth. This should become obvious if you compare Israel, where holocaust denial is illegal, to the UK, where it is not. Clearly the 2 nations have different opinions on the limits of freedom of speech. Laws get changed all the time, which doesn't mean the underlying ethics changed. Are you sure about this? I would have thought that laws change precisely because moral and ethical sensibilities do change. If what should happen is defined by what's already law... I don't think that's being argued.
        ikeboy 11y ago

tremon 11y ago

Because all your ancestors had it. It's a natural right, which stems from the abundance of new information generated every minute (and the brain's incapacity to contain all of it) and the inability to keep detailed records immediately accessible. That situation has changed with the combination of web 2.0 and search engines, so now we need laws to enforce the old, natural situation while we (as a society) work out in which direction we want to go.