5 ms·

The EU has defined privacy, along with 117 other things, to be a fundamental human right. However the EU also contradicts that right with another right of "fre

The EU has defined privacy, along with 117 other things, to be a fundamental human right. However the EU also contradicts that right with another right of "freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority". In the case of "right to be forgotten" EU law is holding that it is more important for an individual to be able to censor information about themselves than it is for other people to be able to share and receive information about that person. The courts also held, uselessly, that each invocation of the right to be forgotten must be individually balanced against that other right to convey and receive information, and that the burden of proof lies with the respondent charged with removing the information by the individual. In other words the right to be forgotten is effectively absolute, because no person or entity could afford to investigate and respond to each such claim, and is forced to simply accept them all as if they were uniformly meritorious. As a result, the public loses their right to receive and impart information, which is guaranteed by the EU Charter. So you can argue that "it's a country's first duty to protect the fundamental human rights of it's citizens" but in this instance the courts have erased one of those human rights. Also I wonder if you also believe in reciprocal enforcement of all the various rights guaranteed to Americans by their Constitution and by jurisprudence. You might not be aware, for example, that the most fundamental right of free speech in the US extends not only to individuals but to organizations and corporate entities. Are you prepared for American courts to start laying fines on European companies for infringing on the rights of free speech of American corporations?

ocdtrekkie 11y ago
I will admit the full extent of the Citizens United decision terrifies me. But even then RTBF doesn't affect information of public interest. So any sort of inappropriate behavior on behalf of a corporation wouldn't really be covered.
- thrownaway2424 11y ago
  The protections in the RTBF ruling for public interest are weak, though, because they require search engines to make the determination themselves, and to defend that determination in each individual case before a court. Obviously it will be much easier for the search engines to just throw away the public interest, because there is no penalty for complying with all RTBF requests.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Could not a website also ask a search engine to defend it's determination to remove a website improperly? Sites like The Guardian should presumably also be able to appeal if their public interest posts are censored. In a proper appeal process (I cannot say if this is currently in RTBF, I don't know), infringed parties exist which could complain for either way a decision goes, so it's in the best interest of the determining party (in this case Google or Bing) to make the decision most likely to be upheld by an appeals court (or data protection agency, as I think it is in this case).
effie 11y ago
> In other words the right to be forgotten is effectively absolute, because no person or entity could afford to investigate and respond to each such claim, and is forced to simply accept them all as if they were uniformly meritorious. No, that's not how it necessarily works. The search teams do not like meddling with their search results so it is reasonable to assume they analyze removal requests carefully and proceed with the removal only for the substantiated ones, in the sense of the court ruling. If the request does not qualify, the probability that the individual would drag the big company into court and win is very low. There is no worry of losing in the court then and the search team won't remove the result.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

I will admit the full extent of the Citizens United decision terrifies me. But even then RTBF doesn't affect information of public interest. So any sort of inappropriate behavior on behalf of a corporation wouldn't really be covered.

thrownaway2424 11y ago
The protections in the RTBF ruling for public interest are weak, though, because they require search engines to make the determination themselves, and to defend that determination in each individual case before a court. Obviously it will be much easier for the search engines to just throw away the public interest, because there is no penalty for complying with all RTBF requests.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  Could not a website also ask a search engine to defend it's determination to remove a website improperly? Sites like The Guardian should presumably also be able to appeal if their public interest posts are censored. In a proper appeal process (I cannot say if this is currently in RTBF, I don't know), infringed parties exist which could complain for either way a decision goes, so it's in the best interest of the determining party (in this case Google or Bing) to make the decision most likely to be upheld by an appeals court (or data protection agency, as I think it is in this case).

effie 11y ago

> In other words the right to be forgotten is effectively absolute, because no person or entity could afford to investigate and respond to each such claim, and is forced to simply accept them all as if they were uniformly meritorious. No, that's not how it necessarily works. The search teams do not like meddling with their search results so it is reasonable to assume they analyze removal requests carefully and proceed with the removal only for the substantiated ones, in the sense of the court ruling. If the request does not qualify, the probability that the individual would drag the big company into court and win is very low. There is no worry of losing in the court then and the search team won't remove the result.