3 ms·

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' inter

by 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?

by tremon 9y ago

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?