4 ms·

This is the world we now live in. We have to get used to it. Why? The problem here is a little bit someone's right to remember (which is in no way undermined b

This is the world we now live in. We have to get used to it. Why? The problem here is a little bit someone's right to remember (which is in no way undermined by the CJEU ruling) and a lot the tools that artificially help everyone to find information they never knew in the first place. Its a disadvantage but a disadvantage faced by everyone. We're all subject to police powers and the criminal justice system, too, but statistically speaking it seems some of us are more subject to them than others. The press are equally free to report on all of us and under the same professional obligations to print retractions if they make mistakes, but it turns out that the retractions tend to be more prominent when it's a celebrity with the resources to bring a multi-million defamation lawsuit than when it was the local school teacher whose name was coincidentally the same as a convicted paedophile in last week's front page report where they included the teacher's photo by mistake.

wav-part 10y ago
> ... a lot the tools that artificially help everyone to find information they never knew in the first place. If the information is already legally public, there is no case. If its illegally obtained then there already exist laws that covers it. > ... statistically speaking it seems some of us are more subject to them than others. But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  If the information is already legally public, there is no case. The original "right to be forgotten" case heard by the CJEU was essentially that information was already out there but was no longer fairly representative of the individual concerned and that this resulted in harm to that individual. But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection. But Google is not the whole picture here. This issue primarily affects people who have incorrect or misleading information about them floating around on the Internet. That situation may or may not have been their fault in any way, but it nevertheless makes them much more vulnerable in this sense. The operation of a site like Google, if it perpetuates such information without ensuring its appropriateness first, then dramatically increases the resulting vulnerability, which the individual still may or may not actually deserve. In other contexts, if you repeat a harmful lie about someone, you are as guilty of defamation as whoever told you that lie in the first place. I see no compelling argument that the same should not apply to online search tools, just because it's inconvenient for their business model of automating everything with minimal human interactions.

wav-part 10y ago

> ... a lot the tools that artificially help everyone to find information they never knew in the first place. If the information is already legally public, there is no case. If its illegally obtained then there already exist laws that covers it. > ... statistically speaking it seems some of us are more subject to them than others. But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection.

Silhouette 10y ago
If the information is already legally public, there is no case. The original "right to be forgotten" case heard by the CJEU was essentially that information was already out there but was no longer fairly representative of the individual concerned and that this resulted in harm to that individual. But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection. But Google is not the whole picture here. This issue primarily affects people who have incorrect or misleading information about them floating around on the Internet. That situation may or may not have been their fault in any way, but it nevertheless makes them much more vulnerable in this sense. The operation of a site like Google, if it perpetuates such information without ensuring its appropriateness first, then dramatically increases the resulting vulnerability, which the individual still may or may not actually deserve. In other contexts, if you repeat a harmful lie about someone, you are as guilty of defamation as whoever told you that lie in the first place. I see no compelling argument that the same should not apply to online search tools, just because it's inconvenient for their business model of automating everything with minimal human interactions.