4 ms·
I did not see that comming. Mainly from Wikimedia, since the tone is like they've won a war against Evil Corp for freedom when it looks like they just screw wit
by franciscop 11y ago
I did not see that comming. Mainly from Wikimedia, since the tone is like they've won a war against Evil Corp for freedom when it looks like they just screw with this person's life. Yes, wikimedia might have the legal rights to do this, but as the awesome community and organization they are this feels completely odd.
- soperj 11y agoShe took them to court, not the other way around.
- MichaelApproved 11y agoI don't see how they are screwing with her life. She, herself, published the info in a book. > The court recognized that a birth year made accessible by the Claimant herself through publicly available sources such as a book “would not remain limited to a small circle of people … but be accessible to a circle of users unlimited in theory.”
- pluma 11y agoThis. The court ruled against her because she demanded information she herself had previously made available to the general public to be removed based on privacy concerns. While I would maintain that "available to the general public" doesn't equal "available to everyone" (info on the web is more likely widely available than info in a print book) I agree with the court in that her claim against Wikimedia is invalid in this case.
- matt4077 11y agoI think she rightfully lost, but I can see a few arguments here. Firstly, the book in question was her dissertation which might require a birth date as a matter of form. Secondly, there's a qualitative difference between a (possibly out-of-print) book and a website. In a way it's a rehash of the whole 'right to be forgotten' debate.