4 ms·

I don't like how they idealize EU law. It is actually used by people that have something to hide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#Criticism

I don't like how they idealize EU law. It is actually used by people that have something to hide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#Criticis... . I would prefer it to be on case-by-case basis, not automated process.

karma_fountain 9y ago
From that wiki article, 95% are people wishing to protect their personal and private information. If the links are in the public interest then they are not removed. The only issue I see is that it is Google deciding on what is in the public interest, which granted is quite disturbing.
- brownbat 9y ago
  The original right to be forgotten case was about how a guy in Spain couldn't get cheap credit because of past defaults. It arguably is in the public interest for creditors to know whether or not someone has defaulted in the past. It allows society to lend money at reasonable rates. And it's interesting that the European court found that the Spanish newspaper that originally published had no obligation to remove this information, but the foreign tech company that simply relays this existing publication should change how it does business. There were no new rules for the Spanish government. That very government literally ordered the publication as a matter of public interest in the first place. Why change anything at the source? If someone were cynical, they might suspect the right to be forgotten had a touch of protectionism baked into its rationale, alongside the European idealism.
  - tremon 9y ago
    It arguably is in the public interest for creditors to know whether or not someone has defaulted in the past. Seems that that mainly is in the creditors' interest, not the public's. And it's interesting that the European court found that the Spanish newspaper that originally published had no obligation to remove this information, but the foreign tech company that simply relays this existing publication should change how it does business. You're being willfully obtuse here. If you know exactly what the European Court ordered, you also know its rationale -- and thus know that it had nothing to do with national vs foreign.
    - brownbat 9y ago
      > Seems that that mainly is in the creditors' interest, not the public's. It's in the public's interest to have a functioning credit system. We can use some information to determine creditworthiness, or we can give everyone the same terms. Under blind terms, not only can none of us afford loans and interest rates feel predatory, you risk a moral hazard where fraud cannibalizes the entire system. I shouldn't have to argue this though, it's evident from the underlying facts of the case. The Spanish government itself decided there was a public interest in this information, that's why they demanded it was published in the first place. > You're being willfully obtuse here. If you know exactly what the European Court ordered, you also know its rationale... The insult seems unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't expect you'll believe me, but for the record, I'm actually making a good faith argument here because I find their rationale incredibly tortured. They conclude that something can be lawfully published, but not lawfully repeated. "Publish" implies the possibility of publicity though, they have the same root! It genuinely seems to me they were trying to have their cake and eat it too.
    - dang 9y ago
      This crosses into personal attack, which is not ok in HN comments. Could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?
baq 9y ago
everyone has something to hide, especially now when you're on facebook if you want it or not.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
That's a good thing, though. Everyone has something to hide, and I would very much like to be 100% in control of what information is spread about me, provided that information is not a matter of legitimate public interest. Critics of the right to be forgotten usually have some personal or financial gain from said information being available. I'm not interested in that. Other critics claim the Internet will be afflicted with huge "memory holes". So what? Do we really need to log and store everything?
- marksomnian 9y ago
  > matter of legitimate public interest You and I will no doubt have different opinions on what is a "matter of public interest". If someone is embroiled in a scandal, they will consider that they are "over it" and that "the past is the past", while I would very much like to know about it if I'm considering hiring them. It has to be a case-by-case process. Period. Anything else is either not going far enough, or ripe for abuse.
  - John_KZ 9y ago
    This. This protection law is a double-edged sword. A decent solution would be to prevent things like judicial documents and government reports from appearing in search engines, and instead make them all available in a different form, which requires some personal effort. Say a custom website or on a request basis. This way you can make sure that if a journalist is researching a corrupt politician, a corporate manager or his seemingly dangerous neighbor that keeps making threats, he can get his information, but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. This way your employer can also only look up the details of only 1-2 people, not screen all applicants based on their past convictions. News articles should be removed only after a court order that confirms what is said is defaming and untrue. Most people don't get news articles written about them, and if they're correct they can get their legal fees back. Right now the system is extremely opaque and it's not entirely clear if it's regular people using it or just scammers.
    - curt15 9y ago
      >but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. But any inconvenience is a business opportunity unless you simply outlaw certain types of information-retrieval businesses.
billysielu 9y ago
I used the EU removal process because a website was hosting my personal information and the webmaster wouldn't respond to contact attempts. Nothing to do with having something to hide! It's about people publishing information which isn't theirs to publish, and it not being cost-effective to take legal action.
aje403 9y ago
Why don't you sort through it yourself then or foot the cost? And also, be the person to go and tell everyone with something to do hide that they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, namely, to not have their personal information and life on display as part of a company's product being given away to the rest of the world.

karma_fountain 9y ago

From that wiki article, 95% are people wishing to protect their personal and private information. If the links are in the public interest then they are not removed. The only issue I see is that it is Google deciding on what is in the public interest, which granted is quite disturbing.

brownbat 9y ago
The original right to be forgotten case was about how a guy in Spain couldn't get cheap credit because of past defaults. It arguably is in the public interest for creditors to know whether or not someone has defaulted in the past. It allows society to lend money at reasonable rates. And it's interesting that the European court found that the Spanish newspaper that originally published had no obligation to remove this information, but the foreign tech company that simply relays this existing publication should change how it does business. There were no new rules for the Spanish government. That very government literally ordered the publication as a matter of public interest in the first place. Why change anything at the source? If someone were cynical, they might suspect the right to be forgotten had a touch of protectionism baked into its rationale, alongside the European idealism.
- tremon 9y ago
  It arguably is in the public interest for creditors to know whether or not someone has defaulted in the past. Seems that that mainly is in the creditors' interest, not the public's. And it's interesting that the European court found that the Spanish newspaper that originally published had no obligation to remove this information, but the foreign tech company that simply relays this existing publication should change how it does business. You're being willfully obtuse here. If you know exactly what the European Court ordered, you also know its rationale -- and thus know that it had nothing to do with national vs foreign.
  - brownbat 9y ago
    > Seems that that mainly is in the creditors' interest, not the public's. It's in the public's interest to have a functioning credit system. We can use some information to determine creditworthiness, or we can give everyone the same terms. Under blind terms, not only can none of us afford loans and interest rates feel predatory, you risk a moral hazard where fraud cannibalizes the entire system. I shouldn't have to argue this though, it's evident from the underlying facts of the case. The Spanish government itself decided there was a public interest in this information, that's why they demanded it was published in the first place. > You're being willfully obtuse here. If you know exactly what the European Court ordered, you also know its rationale... The insult seems unnecessary and counterproductive. I don't expect you'll believe me, but for the record, I'm actually making a good faith argument here because I find their rationale incredibly tortured. They conclude that something can be lawfully published, but not lawfully repeated. "Publish" implies the possibility of publicity though, they have the same root! It genuinely seems to me they were trying to have their cake and eat it too.
  - dang 9y ago
    This crosses into personal attack, which is not ok in HN comments. Could you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do this again?

baq 9y ago

everyone has something to hide, especially now when you're on facebook if you want it or not.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

That's a good thing, though. Everyone has something to hide, and I would very much like to be 100% in control of what information is spread about me, provided that information is not a matter of legitimate public interest. Critics of the right to be forgotten usually have some personal or financial gain from said information being available. I'm not interested in that. Other critics claim the Internet will be afflicted with huge "memory holes". So what? Do we really need to log and store everything?

marksomnian 9y ago
> matter of legitimate public interest You and I will no doubt have different opinions on what is a "matter of public interest". If someone is embroiled in a scandal, they will consider that they are "over it" and that "the past is the past", while I would very much like to know about it if I'm considering hiring them. It has to be a case-by-case process. Period. Anything else is either not going far enough, or ripe for abuse.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  This. This protection law is a double-edged sword. A decent solution would be to prevent things like judicial documents and government reports from appearing in search engines, and instead make them all available in a different form, which requires some personal effort. Say a custom website or on a request basis. This way you can make sure that if a journalist is researching a corrupt politician, a corporate manager or his seemingly dangerous neighbor that keeps making threats, he can get his information, but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. This way your employer can also only look up the details of only 1-2 people, not screen all applicants based on their past convictions. News articles should be removed only after a court order that confirms what is said is defaming and untrue. Most people don't get news articles written about them, and if they're correct they can get their legal fees back. Right now the system is extremely opaque and it's not entirely clear if it's regular people using it or just scammers.
  - curt15 9y ago
    >but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. But any inconvenience is a business opportunity unless you simply outlaw certain types of information-retrieval businesses.

billysielu 9y ago

I used the EU removal process because a website was hosting my personal information and the webmaster wouldn't respond to contact attempts. Nothing to do with having something to hide! It's about people publishing information which isn't theirs to publish, and it not being cost-effective to take legal action.

aje403 9y ago

Why don't you sort through it yourself then or foot the cost? And also, be the person to go and tell everyone with something to do hide that they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, namely, to not have their personal information and life on display as part of a company's product being given away to the rest of the world.