3 ms·
I 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 Cl
by MichaelApproved 11y ago
I 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.