4 ms·
>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 ent
by 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.