4 ms·

it has nothing to do with GDPR thanks for trying

blankety119 7y ago
Are you sure about that? The implications of what's been said here will on some level impact how EU law will apply to countries outside of the EU. Considering the right to be forgotten is closely married to the right to erasure, GDPR is in the crosshairs. Remember, GDPR was supposed to apply globally. It's clear from today's ruling, there's some doubt in the courts whether or not that is even responsible, let alone possible.
- orwin 7y ago
  > Considering the right to be forgotten is closely married to the right to erasure How? The right to be forgotten is just basically asking google/yahoo/bing/qwant not to put articles that can hurt one's reputation if asked. Imagine the only thing you're known for is a pedophilia case were you were first condamned, then release because it appears the children (and some of the really guilty) have lied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial You might want your name removed from google. Maybe. The right to erasure is just your furnishing your own personnal data to a service provider and then asking them to remove all the data they have on you they can delete. In the last case, you have a direct, business relation to the service provider. In the first one you don't.
  - blankety119 7y ago
    Erasure cannot stand on its own. It needs the Right to be Forgotten upheld, globally. "The correspondingly-named rule primarily regulates erasure obligations" https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/ GDPR even labels the right to erasure as "the right to be forgotten" http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-17-right-to-erasure-'right-to-be-forgotten'-GDPR.htm http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-17-right-to-eras...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  > Are you sure about that? Yep, the right to be forgotten (or to oblivion) predates GDPR. > The implications of what's been said here will on some level impact how EU law will apply to countries outside of the EU. Not really, each country still decide by itself. > Remember, GDPR was supposed to apply globally It is not about GDPR. The ruling on one side talks about "versions". Facebook has only one version of its social network, while Google has been known of running different versions of their search engine. For example: Google China is a subsidiary of Google The other side of the ruling is that EU court just said that Europe could not impose the right to be forgotten on countries that did not recognize the law, which is fairly obvious. USA cannot enforce patents on countries that do not recognize them. They also feared - disproportionally given the status of things - that allowing it globally would mean that if North Korea do the same (which they already do BTW) that could lead to state censorship, as if it wasn't already a reality. GDPR is more about the ownership of personal data, the right to data portability, for example, still makes perfect sense and it's not put in danger by this ruling.

Are you sure about that? The implications of what's been said here will on some level impact how EU law will apply to countries outside of the EU. Considering the right to be forgotten is closely married to the right to erasure, GDPR is in the crosshairs. Remember, GDPR was supposed to apply globally. It's clear from today's ruling, there's some doubt in the courts whether or not that is even responsible, let alone possible.

orwin 7y ago
> Considering the right to be forgotten is closely married to the right to erasure How? The right to be forgotten is just basically asking google/yahoo/bing/qwant not to put articles that can hurt one's reputation if asked. Imagine the only thing you're known for is a pedophilia case were you were first condamned, then release because it appears the children (and some of the really guilty) have lied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial You might want your name removed from google. Maybe. The right to erasure is just your furnishing your own personnal data to a service provider and then asking them to remove all the data they have on you they can delete. In the last case, you have a direct, business relation to the service provider. In the first one you don't.
- blankety119 7y ago
  Erasure cannot stand on its own. It needs the Right to be Forgotten upheld, globally. "The correspondingly-named rule primarily regulates erasure obligations" https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/ GDPR even labels the right to erasure as "the right to be forgotten" http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-17-right-to-erasure-'right-to-be-forgotten'-GDPR.htm http://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/article-17-right-to-eras...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
lostjohnny 7y ago
> Are you sure about that? Yep, the right to be forgotten (or to oblivion) predates GDPR. > The implications of what's been said here will on some level impact how EU law will apply to countries outside of the EU. Not really, each country still decide by itself. > Remember, GDPR was supposed to apply globally It is not about GDPR. The ruling on one side talks about "versions". Facebook has only one version of its social network, while Google has been known of running different versions of their search engine. For example: Google China is a subsidiary of Google The other side of the ruling is that EU court just said that Europe could not impose the right to be forgotten on countries that did not recognize the law, which is fairly obvious. USA cannot enforce patents on countries that do not recognize them. They also feared - disproportionally given the status of things - that allowing it globally would mean that if North Korea do the same (which they already do BTW) that could lead to state censorship, as if it wasn't already a reality. GDPR is more about the ownership of personal data, the right to data portability, for example, still makes perfect sense and it's not put in danger by this ruling.