4 ms·

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 rem

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?

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?