6 ms·
The ruling is fair, it would open an international can of worms if EU bodies would start to dictate other countries users what to see on the net. However, it m
by brokenkebab 7y ago
The ruling is fair, it would open an international can of worms if EU bodies would start to dictate other countries users what to see on the net.
However, it means the real effect of the RtBF law is that it impedes less technically proficient internet users to search other person's data, but absolutely doesn't achieve stated goals (as nothing is forgotten, and entities which do personal data checks will for sure be able to use non-EU IPs to get unrestricted results). What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all.
Which proves the whole thing was a combination of PR stunt, and incompetence on behalf of wide array of EU politicians, and NGO activists.
- Vinnl 7y ago> What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all. That sounds like it's still something though. If someone gets falsely accused of e.g. being a pedophile, and their prospective employer does not run into that information when researching them during the interview process, that seems like it achieves one of the goals people had in mind with this legislation.
- bilbo0s 7y agoBut the employer would, because the firm they use to do background checks will use an IP in the States to do the search.
- AstralStorm 7y agoWell if the employer is in the EU, they won't. So it's a win for EU, they get a potentially skilled employee. USA privacy laws are bad enough you can get sicced by a private investigator most of the time with no questions asked, no repercussions.
- brokenkebab 7y ago>Well if the employer is in the EU, they won't. They would, of course. Unless, someone's planning to build a whole Chinese-style censorship state, it's not possible to disallow to obtain information through VPN.
- Vespasian 7y agoI think the assumption is that the employer wouldn't do a background check in most cases (education etc. is an exception). I've never encountered one in Germany and we certainly don't do them with potential applicants at my place of employment. (No idea whether this is because of a law or for different reasons)
- brokenkebab 7y agoSo employing company either does, or does not do background checks. And if it does it works irrespective of RtBF law.
- Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 7y agoNo 'background checks' by private investigators in Germany. Some employers ask for a police certificate of conduct. There's a law saying which kind of convictions are listed there (nothing below a certain amount of days) and how long (to allow re-socialization).
- CodesInChaos 7y agoPreventing the search may be hard. But I don't see a problem with disallowing hiring discrimination based on such information (which is likely already the case).
- brokenkebab 7y ago>That sounds like it's still something though Sure, but nothing to celebrate: it puts average Joe in even more disadvantaged position compared to organized entities (corporations, and gov't agencies) when searching, while still won't save anyone from professional info gathering. E.g. all headhunting companies certainly will use VPNs, or similar technologies when compiling data.
- inlined 7y agoWouldn’t this be a systematic violation of the candidate’s right to be forgotten? It seems like this is the now-missing part of the puzzle: other countries still have sovereignty over their data but explicitly using a vpn to access legally protected pii should be itself a violation.
- brokenkebab 7y agoI don't think so. The law doesn't oblige me to abstain from searching information (IANAL), and it really must not, because it won't be technically enforceable unless you are willing to go to the space of totalitarian state solutions, and overall decrease of rights people enjoy just to expand one particular (and not particularly well tested) legal concept. I think it worth keeping in mind that attaching word "right" to some legal novelty doesn't necessary means it is something sacred, and even just good. We always have to assess cost/benefits balance, and not just declared intentions when looking at laws. RtBF conflicts with rights regarding searching facts/data which everybody needs to make informed decisions. Therefore it cannot be pushed farther without rather unpleasant consequences.
- BurningFrog 7y agoDoesn't it equally help actual pedophiles have their actions forgotten?
- skrebbel 7y agoSo long as they're not convicted, yes, and that's a good thing.
- simias 7y agoIf you consider that somebody who has accomplished his sentence paid their debt to society it doesn't really matter. Either the person is still in prison (and they have bigger problems than worrying about Google search results) or they have left prison and society deemed that they deserved a second chance, in which case the right to be forgotten actually works as intended. I realize that for these types of heinous crimes not everybody will agree with that but on the other hand letting these people free but living as pariahs shunned by the rest of society doesn't seem like a good solution (especially if we want to prevent them from acting on their impulses again).
- iamstupidsimple 7y agoSome crimes I can forgive, this I cannot. And therin lies the root of the problem. I do not want crimes that are deemed acceptable to be forgotten to be delegated to private corporations.
- true_religion 7y agoIn the specific case you mention, sex offender registries are administered by the government. Anyone that society deems to still be a risk is still on the list, regardless of the right to be forgotten removing newspaper entries about them.
- simias 7y ago>I do not want crimes that are deemed acceptable to be forgotten to be delegated to private corporations. But that's effectively the opposite of that. It's the government that mandates that private corporations implement the "right to be forgotten", regardless of the reason. The corporation has no say on the matter. On the other hand if you do not have something like that then you live it up to private entities to effectively implement vigilante justice by listing supposed pedophiles forever on their websites for instance. If you really think that people who commit pedophilia and other heinous crimes are forever unfit to live in society you should get your government to enact laws that make sure they're never released without supervision for instance. I mean unless you're a proponent of vigilante justice, but then you are effectively delegating justice to private entities, corporations or otherwise.
- emiliobumachar 7y agoA big part of the rationale behind RtBF was about how advances in technology had made it harder for some individuals to escape a past scandal at all, since it would show up in all searches of their name, a de facto scarlet letter. Censoring just the easy default searches does preserve the mitigation against that effect.
- brokenkebab 7y agoI'm not sure which effect. One very likely still face consequencies anytime there's an incentive to check the person's background, such as when looking for a big company employment, or entering public/political life. Because, it's still few clicks away, and one doesn't need neither costly equipment, nor complex training to reveal it. Random grandma may not find it, but arguments for the law where based on the former, not on the latter.
- temporalparts 7y agoI don't understand why it's search engine's burden to bear for right to be forgotten. Shouldn't the takedown notices go to the source materials, eg newspapers, who actually contains the knowledge? Google is simply the references to knowledge that "needs" to be forgotten, and not the knowledge itself?
- hugoroy 7y agoThat's because the newspaper and the search engine have very different kinds of activities when it comes to processing data. In 2014, this is how the Court explains it (my emphasis): "35 In this connection, it should be pointed out that the processing of personal data carried out in the context of the activity of a search engine can be distinguished from and is additional to that carried out by publishers of websites, consisting in loading those data on an internet page. 36 Moreover, it is undisputed that that activity of search engines plays a decisive role in the overall dissemination of those data in that it renders the latter accessible to any internet user making a search on the basis of the data subject’s name, including to internet users who otherwise would not have found the web page on which those data are published. 37 Also, the organisation and aggregation of information published on the internet that are effected by search engines with the aim of facilitating their users’ access to that information may, when users carry out their search on the basis of an individual’s name, result in them obtaining through the list of results a structured overview of the information relating to that individual that can be found on the internet enabling them to establish a more or less detailed profile of the data subject." [...] "80 It must be pointed out at the outset that, as has been found in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the present judgment, processing of personal data, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by the operator of a search engine is liable to affect significantly the fundamental rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data when the search by means of that engine is carried out on the basis of an individual’s name, since that processing enables any internet user to obtain through the list of results a structured overview of the information relating to that individual that can be found on the internet — information which potentially concerns a vast number of aspects of his private life and which, without the search engine, could not have been interconnected or could have been only with great difficulty — and thereby to establish a more or less detailed profile of him. Furthermore, the effect of the interference with those rights of the data subject is heightened on account of the important role played by the internet and search engines in modern society, which render the information contained in such a list of results ubiquitous (see, to this effect, Joined Cases C‑509/09 and C‑161/10 eDate Advertising and Others EU:C:2011:685, paragraph 45)." http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=969114 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
- thefounder 7y ago>> What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. Well most of the users are "low skilled" so I think it works good enough. After all a skilled user could do a comprehensive background check which may reveal more than Google.
- brokenkebab 7y ago1. Low skilled search is unlikely to be about anything affecting life, or career. Life, and career meanwhile are affected by people who know what they are looking for. 2. Low skilled level will be different in 5 years from today. I'm old enough to remember when people asked me to push 'on' button on a computer, just in case.
- AnssiH 7y ago> However, it means the real effect of the RtBF law is that it impedes less technically proficient internet users to search other person's data, but absolutely doesn't achieve stated goals (as nothing is forgotten, and entities which do personal data checks will for sure be able to use non-EU IPs to get unrestricted results). What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all. The goal of "right to be forgotten" in this context is precisely to make the information less ubiquitous, not to delete it altogether. E.g. it does not apply to newspapers etc.
- brokenkebab 7y agoThat's not how I recall arguing for the law. It was advertized as right to be forgotten, actually :-) Kind of "a guy served his term, let's make a law so that past won't affect employability today". And I miss the meaning of 'less ubiquitous' in Google search context. Reality is that the law just slightly raises the bar on intentions to search, so that if you don't care you won't find, but if you do you will. In its dictionary meaning ubiqiutousness doesn't seem to play any role in outcomes. Btw, it doesn't apply to newspaper not because the bill's authors intended it to be so, but because it would infringe freedom of speech in a very blatant manner otherwise.