5 ms·

>> This law is really terrible Why?

DocTomoe 7y ago
It moves responsibility from the publisher to the indexer. Essentially, it's like your privacy rights were violated in a novel, so instead of going after the publisher to cease and desist, you sue every single library (and technically every non-organizational owner of said novel) to burn their copy.
- easymodex 7y ago
  Well, it's actually like there is just 1 novel in somebody's basement which noone will ever stumble upon... unless it's in top 3 hits when looking up your name at the one single library that everyone is using.
  - DocTomoe 7y ago
    ... or someone happens to search for any other information in that book.
- Grumbledour 7y ago
  Pretty much this. In addition to that, the responsibility to decide what should be taken down/delisted is also moved from the publisher/courts of law to the indexer, so there is no due process.
donatj 7y ago
I don’t think people should be able to cover up the truth. That’s rotten. If there are lies about you, that’s covered by slander law. Not letting others know things that are true that reflect poorly on you is though is a different story. Take for instance the since-freed murderers who have used the law to hide their past actions. I don’t think that is something you should have the right to ask the world to forget.
- krastanov 7y ago
  I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes sense there. Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.
  - hartator 7y ago
    But I don’t think you should be put in jail for telling the truth. It’s basically what this law is about.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Truth isn't an absolute defense. If you privately record someone without permission, you don't get to share that just because it's true.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        And in the US, when dealing with private individuals (not the government's ability to collect and use information), the situations where truth isn't an absolute defense are extremely rare. Even the unidirectional right of private recording varies from state to state. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
      - hartator 7y ago

It moves responsibility from the publisher to the indexer. Essentially, it's like your privacy rights were violated in a novel, so instead of going after the publisher to cease and desist, you sue every single library (and technically every non-organizational owner of said novel) to burn their copy.

easymodex 7y ago
Well, it's actually like there is just 1 novel in somebody's basement which noone will ever stumble upon... unless it's in top 3 hits when looking up your name at the one single library that everyone is using.
- DocTomoe 7y ago
  ... or someone happens to search for any other information in that book.
Grumbledour 7y ago
Pretty much this. In addition to that, the responsibility to decide what should be taken down/delisted is also moved from the publisher/courts of law to the indexer, so there is no due process.

donatj 7y ago

I don’t think people should be able to cover up the truth. That’s rotten. If there are lies about you, that’s covered by slander law. Not letting others know things that are true that reflect poorly on you is though is a different story. Take for instance the since-freed murderers who have used the law to hide their past actions. I don’t think that is something you should have the right to ask the world to forget.

krastanov 7y ago
I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes sense there. Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.
- hartator 7y ago
  But I don’t think you should be put in jail for telling the truth. It’s basically what this law is about.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Truth isn't an absolute defense. If you privately record someone without permission, you don't get to share that just because it's true.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      And in the US, when dealing with private individuals (not the government's ability to collect and use information), the situations where truth isn't an absolute defense are extremely rare. Even the unidirectional right of private recording varies from state to state. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
    - hartator 7y ago