4 ms·

Personally, I find this a dangerous way of thinking. A real "right to be forgotten" law would affect content providers/publishers. Instead this is more "right t

Personally, I find this a dangerous way of thinking. A real "right to be forgotten" law would affect content providers/publishers. Instead this is more "right to de-index". Ease of access is very subjective and the arbiters appear to be the ones holding the gun shooting said messengers. Despite my other concerns with the legislation, the primary reason it works today is because of centralization. The same people fighting for internet privacy and against government censorship will end up making laws like this unenforceable in the future. I wonder what lengths the EU will then go to when the indexing of lawful content is not centralized.

kuschku 11y ago
Well, imagine I get suspected of a crime, turns out I actually wasn’t responsible. Obviously, you can’t remove the newspaper article, even if it is heavily editorialized. But removing the connection between my name and that article would be possible. If someone searches for the specific article, they’ll find it. If they search for my name, they won’t. A reasonable compromise (all data is still there and readable, but my name isn’t connected with it anymore).
- bdhe 11y ago
  > Obviously, you can’t remove the newspaper article, even if it is heavily editorialized. Wouldn't it be easier to have a law requiring that if the newspaper article is online, then they MUST have some sort of Editor's Note or retraction in bold before the actual article.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    We do, but (a) international media does not have to adhere to that law (for example, a newspaper in Switzerland could still contain such an article), and (b) tabloids like BILD ignore that regulation anyway and even end up showing themselves as the only newspaper that fights against the evil censorship.
    - Maken 11y ago
      None of those points support censoring media that do follow the European regulations. The current "Right to be forgotten" is just an ambiguous law's backdoor that lets you hide information without having to pass through the courts.

kuschku 11y ago

Well, imagine I get suspected of a crime, turns out I actually wasn’t responsible. Obviously, you can’t remove the newspaper article, even if it is heavily editorialized. But removing the connection between my name and that article would be possible. If someone searches for the specific article, they’ll find it. If they search for my name, they won’t. A reasonable compromise (all data is still there and readable, but my name isn’t connected with it anymore).

bdhe 11y ago
> Obviously, you can’t remove the newspaper article, even if it is heavily editorialized. Wouldn't it be easier to have a law requiring that if the newspaper article is online, then they MUST have some sort of Editor's Note or retraction in bold before the actual article.
- kuschku 11y ago
  We do, but (a) international media does not have to adhere to that law (for example, a newspaper in Switzerland could still contain such an article), and (b) tabloids like BILD ignore that regulation anyway and even end up showing themselves as the only newspaper that fights against the evil censorship.
  - Maken 11y ago
    None of those points support censoring media that do follow the European regulations. The current "Right to be forgotten" is just an ambiguous law's backdoor that lets you hide information without having to pass through the courts.