3 ms·

"The enforcement of the "right to be forgotten" is a form of censorship" This is a false representation of the issue. Your 'address' may very well be 'true' i

"The enforcement of the "right to be forgotten" is a form of censorship" This is a false representation of the issue. Your 'address' may very well be 'true' information - but people don't have the right to publish it. Your 'private notes stored at Google Docs' are 'true information' - does Google or anyone else have the right to make it public? No - we live in a new world, we need new rules, new laws - 'the right to be forgotten' in 99% of cases is completely benign and reasonable. 99% of the time entities may not want to 'forget' it's simply for economic reasons: they want the data to mine - that's it. This is 99% a 'consumer vs. massive company' issue - and far less an issue of 'right to access information'.

wav-part 10y ago
I think main concern against RTBF that its not well defined. It cannot cover every info associated with a person. Right to Privacy is more applicable and solves everything you want.
- pyrale 10y ago
  Just like any fresh law. Let the judge/regulation bodies polish it.
lisper 10y ago
> Your 'address' may very well be 'true' information - but people don't have the right to publish it. Of course they do. For anyone who has ever made a political contribution in the U.S., their address is public record. I have to pay the phone company extra to not publish my address and phone number. > Your 'private notes stored at Google Docs' are 'true information' - does Google or anyone else have the right to make it public? No, because I hold the copyright on my private notes. > 'the right to be forgotten' in 99% of cases is completely benign and reasonable. I'm actually not disputing that. What I am disputing is a country's right to enforce its laws outside its own borders.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "Of course they do. For anyone who has ever made a political contribution in the U.S., their address is public record." No, they don't. That is a specific case, wherein someone could arguably publish data, because it's public. It would be trivial to change that law - i.e. you cannot know the 'home address' of the contributor, or, you cannot publish it. In which case we're back to the normal scenario of 'your private info is not public info'. "No, because I hold the copyright on my private notes." FYI - you do not hold the 'copyright' on your Google notes - you have a 'user agreement' with Google, which is probably complex, and beyond the understanding of anyone who is not a lawyer, and may allow them to do all sorts of things. Bug you validate my case: as with 'google notes' - there's not reason that standard information could not be controlled in a similar manner. If you want to 'delete' your Google notes forever, you probably could, and Google would probably not keep a copy. They can do the same for other things.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > No, they don't. That is a specific case, wherein someone could arguably publish data, because it's public. That is my point. Much as you may wish it to be otherwise, your home address is not private information. Quite apart from the fact that you are required to publicly disclose your home address under certain circumstances, anyone who knows your home address is free to publish it if they want to and there's nothing you can do about it. Not even RTBF changes that. > It would be trivial to change that law Yes, of course, but so what? Unless and until the law is changed, it is what it is. > you have a 'user agreement' with Google I may have granted Google a license to use my copyrighted material. I have have even signed my rights over to them. I don't know because I don't use Google Notes, so I haven't read the T's&C's. But none of that matters because the initial state for any content I create is that I hold the copyright, and so if I want to control its distribution I can. There's no need for RTBF. The only situation under which RTBF is applicable where existing law is not is when someone wants to remove true information about themselves published by a third party. (If the information is not true then libel laws apply.)
    - lisper 10y ago

wav-part 10y ago

I think main concern against RTBF that its not well defined. It cannot cover every info associated with a person. Right to Privacy is more applicable and solves everything you want.

pyrale 10y ago
Just like any fresh law. Let the judge/regulation bodies polish it.

lisper 10y ago

> Your 'address' may very well be 'true' information - but people don't have the right to publish it. Of course they do. For anyone who has ever made a political contribution in the U.S., their address is public record. I have to pay the phone company extra to not publish my address and phone number. > Your 'private notes stored at Google Docs' are 'true information' - does Google or anyone else have the right to make it public? No, because I hold the copyright on my private notes. > 'the right to be forgotten' in 99% of cases is completely benign and reasonable. I'm actually not disputing that. What I am disputing is a country's right to enforce its laws outside its own borders.

edblarney 10y ago
"Of course they do. For anyone who has ever made a political contribution in the U.S., their address is public record." No, they don't. That is a specific case, wherein someone could arguably publish data, because it's public. It would be trivial to change that law - i.e. you cannot know the 'home address' of the contributor, or, you cannot publish it. In which case we're back to the normal scenario of 'your private info is not public info'. "No, because I hold the copyright on my private notes." FYI - you do not hold the 'copyright' on your Google notes - you have a 'user agreement' with Google, which is probably complex, and beyond the understanding of anyone who is not a lawyer, and may allow them to do all sorts of things. Bug you validate my case: as with 'google notes' - there's not reason that standard information could not be controlled in a similar manner. If you want to 'delete' your Google notes forever, you probably could, and Google would probably not keep a copy. They can do the same for other things.
- lisper 10y ago
  > No, they don't. That is a specific case, wherein someone could arguably publish data, because it's public. That is my point. Much as you may wish it to be otherwise, your home address is not private information. Quite apart from the fact that you are required to publicly disclose your home address under certain circumstances, anyone who knows your home address is free to publish it if they want to and there's nothing you can do about it. Not even RTBF changes that. > It would be trivial to change that law Yes, of course, but so what? Unless and until the law is changed, it is what it is. > you have a 'user agreement' with Google I may have granted Google a license to use my copyrighted material. I have have even signed my rights over to them. I don't know because I don't use Google Notes, so I haven't read the T's&C's. But none of that matters because the initial state for any content I create is that I hold the copyright, and so if I want to control its distribution I can. There's no need for RTBF. The only situation under which RTBF is applicable where existing law is not is when someone wants to remove true information about themselves published by a third party. (If the information is not true then libel laws apply.)
  - lisper 10y ago