3 ms·
>After all, how can a society dictate how its citizens are allowed to use data and interpret it – if that data is already placed in public view, by a public bod
by mlacks 7y ago
>After all, how can a society dictate how its citizens are allowed to use data and interpret it – if that data is already placed in public view, by a public body, such as a court?
I’m totally flabbergasted at how public domain is now not only censored, but sharing of it is punishable by prison time...
>This seems to be like giving someone access to a public library, but banning them from reading certain books that are sitting right there on the shelf for all to see. This is a sort of coercive censorship, but of the most bizarre kind – as it’s the censorship of justice’s own output.
The phrasing of the law is more close to being allowed to read important books about historical events, but you are forbidden to summarize or think about the conclusions of said events and share your findings. I can’t seem to think of another way to rationalize those who approved this into law other than the judges simply didn’t like the public knowing ‘how they think’. What a truly bizarre verdict.
- krstf13 7y agoThe article is misleading, it’s not what the law says. The law specifically forbids the use of personally identifiable data (ie judges and clerks name) to conduct statistical analysis predictions. This seems to be in line with the privacy laws that require prior consent to allow this kind of private data processing (by private I specifically mean related to identifiable individuals)
- Isinlor 7y agoWhen judges are giving orders they are not acting as private individuals, but as officials of the state. They have no right to not be associated with the decisions they are making. Think about politicians: "You have no right to use my personally identifiable data to accuse me of bribery!" If you are acting officially on behalf of the state I have the moral right, whether the law says so or not, to scrutinize your decisions.
- x220 7y agoThe government doesn't have the right to privacy. If you work for the government, people should have the right to know your name and what choices you made in an official capacity. France is practicing the opposite of transparency.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago> The government doesn't have the right to privacy. France clearly disagrees. I think that's misguided on France's part, but it's not "censorship" per se.
- brokenmachine 7y agoSo they can publish in a deidentified fashion?
- nwatson 7y agoRestrictions to use of public information is routine in the U.S. as well, e.g. there are public record archives where the public is allowed to review content but not allowed to use photographs, scanners, or even writing utensils with paper to take away information. You can only leave with what you stuff into your head. This French law still leaves court papers conveniently accessible, it seems, to anyone with a browser. Anyone, working alone or in a team, can still analyze particular judges' tendencies, just not with automated help. So your conclusion "you are forbidden to summarize or think about the conclusions of said events and share your findings" doesn't quite hold. Since the volume of these papers is so huge, the law forces you to be motivated to focus on and analyze a particular judge or type of case or court system ... the cost isn't justifiable otherwise. It's kind of a de facto "warrant" system ... if you really want to search for weird judicial behavior you need to pay the price. In that light the French law isn't any more unreasonable than the U.S. public records review example.