8 ms·

If it didn't, then on what basis do you determine that the first article is wrong? That brings us back to where we came in: the "right to be forgotten" measure

If it didn't, then on what basis do you determine that the first article is wrong? That brings us back to where we came in: the "right to be forgotten" measures provide a way for someone who is suffering harm as a result of information being spread about them to notify the likes of search engines that that information should not be spread about them. Having been so notified, if the search engine continues to propagate the information anyway, it can't say it wasn't warned and it's on the hook for any harm it causes. It's a similar principle to various other "safe harbour" style laws that have been written in recent years, trying to balance the benefits that derive from having these powerful, automated services available online with the dangers that they inherently bring if they act unfairly or get something wrong. The consensus so far seems to be that such services shouldn't necessarily be on the hook for automatically generated or user-supplied content by default, but making them provide a clear notification mechanism and accept responsibility once they have actual knowledge of something going wrong is a fair trade for that safety net.

lisper 10y ago
> provide a way for someone who is suffering harm as a result of information being spread about them to notify the likes of search engines that that information should not be spread about them Yes, of course. But whether or not an individual should be able to censor true information about themselves, even if that information is harmful to them, is highly debatable. I'm happy to engage in that debate if you want, but that is a different issue than the one which I originally raised, which is the question of whether a country's power to censor should extend beyond its own borders. The answer to that is IMHO an unequivocal "no". (The answer to the question of whether a person should be empowered to censor true information about themselves is also IMHO "no", but that is not nearly so clear-cut. Like I said, if you want to engage on this topic I'm happy to have that debate as well. But let us not conflate the two issues. They need to be kept separate or we will end up in a hopeless muddle.)
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Just to be clear, my original comment wasn't disputing your point about international enforcement (on which, once again, it seems we agree on the main principle). I was challenging your characterisation of the RTBF as "an individual's ability to censor true information simply because that information happens to be about them". The original CJEU ruling was pretty clear that, in the court's opinion, there were some circumstances under which restricting the promotion of personal information by search engines, even if that information was true, could be justified. However, the court was also pretty clear that merely disliking the fact that some information about you was being shared was not sufficient grounds for the law to restrict that sharing. I'm happy to debate more specifically the circumstances where that sort of restriction might be reasonable, but if you believe as a philosophy that freedom of expression and the right to say true things should always outweigh an individual's right to privacy then it's unlikely we're going to agree on so much there. I don't personally believe in an absolute right to free speech regardless of the consequences. I do believe that there are many good reasons that privacy is important, and sometimes that it is the more important of the two. To give one concrete example, I think it is a general good that anyone -- including public figures with influential and highly stressful jobs -- should be able to seek help for mental health problems if and when they need to, without fear of suffering criticism or abuse for doing so. That makes respecting the privacy of those who do seek help important, regardless of the truth of any statement that they are doing so. To give another example, the evidence appears to be overwhelming that punitive "justice" systems are far less effective at reducing crime and improving general quality of life than systems based on the rehabilitation of offenders. A huge part of that rehabilitation is allowing past offenders an opportunity to move beyond their old situation, to "turn over a new leaf". It's pretty difficult to do that if stories of the chocolate bar you stole from a store aged 18 are still keeping a very different you out of good job opportunities aged 28 or 38 or 48. Again, it might be true, but there is a strong public interest in concealing that fact once it is no longer relevant to understanding your character, which is exactly why concepts like spent convictions and probationary periods exist in many legal systems. In the age of an Internet that never forgets, that concealment becomes a lot harder, but the evidence for its benefits not just for the individual but for society as a whole is still the same.
  - lisper 10y ago
michaelmrose 10y ago
Your cure is worse than the disease and ineffectual at that what's to stop us from making a search engine for illegal truths.

lisper 10y ago

> provide a way for someone who is suffering harm as a result of information being spread about them to notify the likes of search engines that that information should not be spread about them Yes, of course. But whether or not an individual should be able to censor true information about themselves, even if that information is harmful to them, is highly debatable. I'm happy to engage in that debate if you want, but that is a different issue than the one which I originally raised, which is the question of whether a country's power to censor should extend beyond its own borders. The answer to that is IMHO an unequivocal "no". (The answer to the question of whether a person should be empowered to censor true information about themselves is also IMHO "no", but that is not nearly so clear-cut. Like I said, if you want to engage on this topic I'm happy to have that debate as well. But let us not conflate the two issues. They need to be kept separate or we will end up in a hopeless muddle.)

Silhouette 10y ago
Just to be clear, my original comment wasn't disputing your point about international enforcement (on which, once again, it seems we agree on the main principle). I was challenging your characterisation of the RTBF as "an individual's ability to censor true information simply because that information happens to be about them". The original CJEU ruling was pretty clear that, in the court's opinion, there were some circumstances under which restricting the promotion of personal information by search engines, even if that information was true, could be justified. However, the court was also pretty clear that merely disliking the fact that some information about you was being shared was not sufficient grounds for the law to restrict that sharing. I'm happy to debate more specifically the circumstances where that sort of restriction might be reasonable, but if you believe as a philosophy that freedom of expression and the right to say true things should always outweigh an individual's right to privacy then it's unlikely we're going to agree on so much there. I don't personally believe in an absolute right to free speech regardless of the consequences. I do believe that there are many good reasons that privacy is important, and sometimes that it is the more important of the two. To give one concrete example, I think it is a general good that anyone -- including public figures with influential and highly stressful jobs -- should be able to seek help for mental health problems if and when they need to, without fear of suffering criticism or abuse for doing so. That makes respecting the privacy of those who do seek help important, regardless of the truth of any statement that they are doing so. To give another example, the evidence appears to be overwhelming that punitive "justice" systems are far less effective at reducing crime and improving general quality of life than systems based on the rehabilitation of offenders. A huge part of that rehabilitation is allowing past offenders an opportunity to move beyond their old situation, to "turn over a new leaf". It's pretty difficult to do that if stories of the chocolate bar you stole from a store aged 18 are still keeping a very different you out of good job opportunities aged 28 or 38 or 48. Again, it might be true, but there is a strong public interest in concealing that fact once it is no longer relevant to understanding your character, which is exactly why concepts like spent convictions and probationary periods exist in many legal systems. In the age of an Internet that never forgets, that concealment becomes a lot harder, but the evidence for its benefits not just for the individual but for society as a whole is still the same.
- lisper 10y ago

michaelmrose 10y ago

Your cure is worse than the disease and ineffectual at that what's to stop us from making a search engine for illegal truths.