3 ms·

I stand by that characterization. Then with due respect, your understanding of RTBF is objectively incorrect. It was never about allowing individuals to censor

I stand by that characterization. Then with due respect, your understanding of RTBF is objectively incorrect. It was never about allowing individuals to censor information about themselves just because they don't want it to be shared. You can read more from the EU itself: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets... But I disagree with it because 1) it's too easily abused and 2) it doesn't work. Is there actually any evidence that it's easily abused, or is that just an assumption? For that matter, why doesn't it work? It seems clear that promoting information via a search engine will typically give that information much wider reach than just, say, publishing it on a blog somewhere or having an article on the web site for someone's local newspaper. If that information is incorrect or misleading, if we accept for the purposes of this discussion that distributing that information is therefore undesirable, and if we accept that the search engines themselves report that many links have been removed as a result of RTBF, how can the current situation not be having the intended effect? Completely agree, but the answer to that is to not let that information get out in the first place. Ideally, yes. I just don't think that means you give up on trying to limit harm to an individual, particularly an innocent one, if someone does screw up and let the cat out of the bag. Actually, the real answer here is to remove the societal stigma associated with seeking help for mental health issues in the first place. That's a noble goal, and one I fully support. However, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone in society to treat everyone else objectively and fairly when faced with potentially negative information about them any time soon. Sadly, there is still far too much ignorance and prejudice in society for now. However, privacy is an effective practical tool for reducing the amount of unfairness that results from that kind of ignorance and prejudice. Also, as I mentioned in another post, it's impossible to reliably achieve fair outcomes after initially encountering negative information, even with good intentions all round. If nothing else, someone who looks up an individual and initially finds negative information about them won't (and can't) know for sure whether there was also some later positive information that they should take into account as well. Short of reliably data mining and classifying the sum of all human knowledge so that any search that turned up negative data immediately highlighted the overriding positive data as well, there is no way to solve this problem 100% of the time. What about the person you raped when you were 32? When it comes to disclosures and background checks, there are usually some types of offence (typically violent or sexual ones) that are deemed sufficiently serious that convictions for those offences never become spent and will turn up on background searches forever, even if the legal system does consider lesser offences to be irrelevant after a certain period of time. I don't see why the same principles shouldn't apply for the same reasons in RTBF cases, and I would expect EU courts to do exactly that when applying the privacy and data protection rules. We're in a shades-of-grey area here, and your example was a much darker shade of grey than mine, so it seems reasonable that there might be a different balance between allowing the past offender to move on and helping others to find information that might be relevant to their dealings with that past offender.

lisper 10y ago
> It was never about allowing individuals to censor information about themselves just because they don't want it to be shared. Maybe that wasn't the intent but that is the net effect because the burden of proof is not on the individual to show that the information should be removed but rather on the search engine to show that it should not be. As a matter of simple economics, Google has essentially no choice but to comply with all RTBF requests whether or not they have merit, just it has to comply with all DMCA takedown requests whether or not they have merit. Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits. > Is there actually any evidence that it's easily abused, or is that just an assumption? It's a prediction. > it's impossible to reliably achieve fair outcomes after initially encountering negative information Why? If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories? > We're in a shades-of-grey area here Yes, of course, that's the whole point. What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty? (Should Michael Slager have a right to force the internet to forget that he actually shot Walter Scott in the back, despite the fact that the jury did not convict him?) What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming? Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do. Why? Because it's cheaper and less risky for Google to simply comply with all takedown request than to actually try to adjudicate each request on its merits.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  As a matter of simple economics, Google has essentially no choice but to comply with all RTBF requests whether or not they have merit From Google's own public statements, they actually reject the majority of requests to remove search results under RTBF: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri... Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits. Apparently you're wrong on that one, but even if you weren't, I'm not sure I would have a problem with this. Google has a highly visible and influential system, but I don't see why it should be exempt from the same data protection and privacy rules that everyone else has to follow just because it is inconvenient or expensive to comply with them. Remember, the original RTBF ruling from the CJEU was based on existing general principles of fair data processing under EU law, not some special anti-Google legislation. If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories? There are laws potentially requiring news outlets to update misleading stories, issue corrections, remove material infringing others' intellectual property rights, etc. This would also be covered by much the same data protection rules, as well as legislation regarding defamation, official secrets, copyright, and so on. What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty? What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming? We have a legal process to make decisions on these difficult issues, by holding a trial, and a great deal of thinking by a great many smart people has gone into making that system the way it is. If the verdict reached through such a trial is flawed, there are well established legal mechanisms for appealing it or even correcting it later if new evidence proves it was wrong. Obviously the system isn't perfect, nor can it ever be in the absence of telepathy or something. But Google and the Internet aren't even close to big and important enough to overturn an entire legal system. And yes, sometimes that legal system results in surprising verdicts. Maybe that's because, unlike Mike from down the road who made a five minute post on his personal blog, the courts actually considered all of the available evidence and followed an impartial process through which an official determination of someone's guilt or lack of guilt was made. But that verdict will be regarded as the final decision for any other purpose, including say a defamation lawsuit also brought in a real court. So an argument that someone should be allowed to just say whatever they want and use a system like Google to magnify their influence even though a court has already ruled the opposite isn't going to be very convincing to me (or just about anyone else) I'm afraid. Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do. Every time you deal with someone else's personal data, you have a legal (and, I would argue, moral) responsibility to do so fairly. If you don't, the law may punish you. I just don't see why the RTBF is different to any other aspect of the relevant law in this respect.

lisper 10y ago

> It was never about allowing individuals to censor information about themselves just because they don't want it to be shared. Maybe that wasn't the intent but that is the net effect because the burden of proof is not on the individual to show that the information should be removed but rather on the search engine to show that it should not be. As a matter of simple economics, Google has essentially no choice but to comply with all RTBF requests whether or not they have merit, just it has to comply with all DMCA takedown requests whether or not they have merit. Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits. > Is there actually any evidence that it's easily abused, or is that just an assumption? It's a prediction. > it's impossible to reliably achieve fair outcomes after initially encountering negative information Why? If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories? > We're in a shades-of-grey area here Yes, of course, that's the whole point. What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty? (Should Michael Slager have a right to force the internet to forget that he actually shot Walter Scott in the back, despite the fact that the jury did not convict him?) What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming? Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do. Why? Because it's cheaper and less risky for Google to simply comply with all takedown request than to actually try to adjudicate each request on its merits.

Silhouette 10y ago
As a matter of simple economics, Google has essentially no choice but to comply with all RTBF requests whether or not they have merit From Google's own public statements, they actually reject the majority of requests to remove search results under RTBF: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/ https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europepri... Google doesn't have the resources (nor should it be expected to provide the resources) to actually adjudicate every case on its merits. Apparently you're wrong on that one, but even if you weren't, I'm not sure I would have a problem with this. Google has a highly visible and influential system, but I don't see why it should be exempt from the same data protection and privacy rules that everyone else has to follow just because it is inconvenient or expensive to comply with them. Remember, the original RTBF ruling from the CJEU was based on existing general principles of fair data processing under EU law, not some special anti-Google legislation. If you can pass a law forcing Google to remove links, why could you not pass a law forcing news outlets to update stories? There are laws potentially requiring news outlets to update misleading stories, issue corrections, remove material infringing others' intellectual property rights, etc. This would also be covered by much the same data protection rules, as well as legislation regarding defamation, official secrets, copyright, and so on. What if you were never convicted of the rape even though you were clearly guilty? What if you were actually innocent even though the evidence against you seemed overwhelming? We have a legal process to make decisions on these difficult issues, by holding a trial, and a great deal of thinking by a great many smart people has gone into making that system the way it is. If the verdict reached through such a trial is flawed, there are well established legal mechanisms for appealing it or even correcting it later if new evidence proves it was wrong. Obviously the system isn't perfect, nor can it ever be in the absence of telepathy or something. But Google and the Internet aren't even close to big and important enough to overturn an entire legal system. And yes, sometimes that legal system results in surprising verdicts. Maybe that's because, unlike Mike from down the road who made a five minute post on his personal blog, the courts actually considered all of the available evidence and followed an impartial process through which an official determination of someone's guilt or lack of guilt was made. But that verdict will be regarded as the final decision for any other purpose, including say a defamation lawsuit also brought in a real court. So an argument that someone should be allowed to just say whatever they want and use a system like Google to magnify their influence even though a court has already ruled the opposite isn't going to be very convincing to me (or just about anyone else) I'm afraid. Who decides which cases fall under the auspices of RTBF? The answer is: you do. Every time you deal with someone else's personal data, you have a legal (and, I would argue, moral) responsibility to do so fairly. If you don't, the law may punish you. I just don't see why the RTBF is different to any other aspect of the relevant law in this respect.