4 ms·

I understand why the DMCA exists -- so that people can't post your copyrighted data (that you necessarily own) without your consent. I understand slander laws

I understand why the DMCA exists -- so that people can't post your copyrighted data (that you necessarily own) without your consent. I understand slander laws -- so that people can't make up stories about you and present them as facts. I do not understand the Right to be Forgotten -- if something is true and public information, why should Google hide the data from its search results? An article being about you does not mean that the information inside of it "belongs" to you. >> "the links relating to a criminal offence that were removed by Google following a request from the individual concerned." You can't request the BBC or Telegraph to take down true and legitimate articles (nor should you), so on what basis does the EU think that they can order Google to alter their search results?

alain94040 11y ago
Your question is covered by the EU's fact sheet on the topic. I found it very readable and clear: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...
mattmanser 11y ago
Your daughter is caught on camera shitting on a beach drunk when she was celebrating her 18th birthday. Should the rest of her life now be ruined because it is 'is true and public information'. Can she never move on? Seriously, imagine it. Put yourself in that scenario. Google will forever more show 'Girl squatting on beach' whenever anyone searches your name. Before the age of computing she could simply move to another city and within a few years all would be forgotten. What is so damaging about Google's search is that unlike humans, it never, ever forgets and it will never forget that the story was wildly popular and very relevant to your name. And it's the same with crimes. When we punish someone for breaking the law, we send them to jail, punish them, and hopefully try and rehabilitate them. When they leave prision their punishment is spent, they have done their penance. But not in Google's eyes. It will highlight the crime as the most relevant bit of information about this person in perpetua. It's mob justice meted out by a computer. At some point people have to be allowed to move on with their lives, and Google is preventing that.
- bko 11y ago
  Designing legislation from the victim's perspective is not advisable. Example: How would you feel if someone assaulted someone you love? I would likely believe this person should be thrown in jail for a very long time although its probably an unreasonable punishment for the crime. I just don't see a way where a piece of legislation can be drafted and implemented that would protect your daughter and not be abused by those in power who want to change the historical record.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    How is it abuse? This is where we differ, criminals have a right to move on too from google shaming. There will still be professional criminal record check companies and credit check companies, if you need to check someone out, don't rely on Google.
  - fastandfurryous 11y ago
    Those in power who want to change the historical record already have the power to do so. They do not need this legislation to do what they want. You do not have that power and this does not give you the power to change the historical record. It allows you to influence the bias in which Google, a biased search engine, displays information that should be relevant to your identity.
- cromwellian 11y ago
  The only problem is, Google isn't the only way to find this information. It exists in social networks, on Twitter, Facebook, and even in Archive.org. It also exists in local search engines provided by the sites themselves. If you have an uncommon name, and you were covered by the news media, or by social media, I can go direct to the AP, NYT, or Twitter search just as easily as Google. It's sad that the internet can't forget, but the law can't make this a reality. Does anyone seriously believe anyone doing serious research, stalking, or a background check on someone will be stymied by Google censoring links? How many of you searching for pirated warez are stymied by DMCA takedowns and don't just go directly to Torrent search engines?
_delirium 11y ago
You can indeed request the BBC or Telegraph to take down articles under similar circumstances. For example in most European countries you can't publish a kind of "where are they now?" article that picks a few random '80s criminal cases, and tracks down the whereabouts of the people 30 years later. That kind of article, showing that a certain person (mentioned by name) now works as a web designer in Aarhus, while another person (also mentioned by name) has moved to Germany and is a welder, etc., would be seen as an invasion of privacy by gratuitously digging up and publishing this kind of 30-year-old information without a current public-interest justification. It doesn't come up often with respectable media outlets, because they have mostly internalized this norm anyway, and wouldn't run such a story. But I could imagine a tabloid or daytime TV show doing something like that, if it were legal.

alain94040 11y ago

Your question is covered by the EU's fact sheet on the topic. I found it very readable and clear: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...

mattmanser 11y ago

Your daughter is caught on camera shitting on a beach drunk when she was celebrating her 18th birthday. Should the rest of her life now be ruined because it is 'is true and public information'. Can she never move on? Seriously, imagine it. Put yourself in that scenario. Google will forever more show 'Girl squatting on beach' whenever anyone searches your name. Before the age of computing she could simply move to another city and within a few years all would be forgotten. What is so damaging about Google's search is that unlike humans, it never, ever forgets and it will never forget that the story was wildly popular and very relevant to your name. And it's the same with crimes. When we punish someone for breaking the law, we send them to jail, punish them, and hopefully try and rehabilitate them. When they leave prision their punishment is spent, they have done their penance. But not in Google's eyes. It will highlight the crime as the most relevant bit of information about this person in perpetua. It's mob justice meted out by a computer. At some point people have to be allowed to move on with their lives, and Google is preventing that.

bko 11y ago
Designing legislation from the victim's perspective is not advisable. Example: How would you feel if someone assaulted someone you love? I would likely believe this person should be thrown in jail for a very long time although its probably an unreasonable punishment for the crime. I just don't see a way where a piece of legislation can be drafted and implemented that would protect your daughter and not be abused by those in power who want to change the historical record.
- mattmanser 11y ago
  How is it abuse? This is where we differ, criminals have a right to move on too from google shaming. There will still be professional criminal record check companies and credit check companies, if you need to check someone out, don't rely on Google.
- fastandfurryous 11y ago
  Those in power who want to change the historical record already have the power to do so. They do not need this legislation to do what they want. You do not have that power and this does not give you the power to change the historical record. It allows you to influence the bias in which Google, a biased search engine, displays information that should be relevant to your identity.
cromwellian 11y ago
The only problem is, Google isn't the only way to find this information. It exists in social networks, on Twitter, Facebook, and even in Archive.org. It also exists in local search engines provided by the sites themselves. If you have an uncommon name, and you were covered by the news media, or by social media, I can go direct to the AP, NYT, or Twitter search just as easily as Google. It's sad that the internet can't forget, but the law can't make this a reality. Does anyone seriously believe anyone doing serious research, stalking, or a background check on someone will be stymied by Google censoring links? How many of you searching for pirated warez are stymied by DMCA takedowns and don't just go directly to Torrent search engines?

_delirium 11y ago

You can indeed request the BBC or Telegraph to take down articles under similar circumstances. For example in most European countries you can't publish a kind of "where are they now?" article that picks a few random '80s criminal cases, and tracks down the whereabouts of the people 30 years later. That kind of article, showing that a certain person (mentioned by name) now works as a web designer in Aarhus, while another person (also mentioned by name) has moved to Germany and is a welder, etc., would be seen as an invasion of privacy by gratuitously digging up and publishing this kind of 30-year-old information without a current public-interest justification. It doesn't come up often with respectable media outlets, because they have mostly internalized this norm anyway, and wouldn't run such a story. But I could imagine a tabloid or daytime TV show doing something like that, if it were legal.