4 ms·

Seems like a transitive bit of reasoning might be a useful law here. If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to delete it, facebo

Seems like a transitive bit of reasoning might be a useful law here. If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to delete it, facebook should do so. If an indexer like google has indexed it, then they should delete it too. Profile photos are an instance. If I am the subject of a public interest news story, then I don't think I can ask them to forget me, so maybe in that case I can't ask google to forget me either? I could then ask google to forget something if and only if I could ask the underlying content publisher to forget it.

Silhouette 7y ago
This is mostly how things already work under EU rules. Neither the original "right to be forgotten" established by a significant court case, which in fact did relate to systems like search engines, nor the subsequent "right to erasure" under the GDPR creates an unrestricted power for data subjects to require all data about them to be deleted regardless of circumstances. For example, you can't take out a bank loan and then force the bank to erase all records of it. There is at least one significant deviation from your "transitive" reasoning, though, in that while EU law might not extend to an original source that is providing misleading/harmful data about someone but is based elsewhere, it can still affect those providing indirect access to that data who are within the scope of EU law.
bilbo0s 7y ago
I think what this case is saying is that Google only has to "forget" that thing in the EU. It's free to keep that information on its servers in Asia and the US for instance. In fact, we can imagine actual legal situations in places like Singapore or the US where that data has to remain available. So I think this just clarifies that it doesn't have to work for every server everywhere in the world.
vkou 7y ago
Suppose that you are the subject of a public interest story, where you randomly witch-hunted as, let's say, a 'pedo guy'. Suppose that once the dust settles, the facts turn out to be entirely in your favor, and a the publications that ran hit pieces against you quietly issue retractions. What will happen when I search Google for '6gvONxR4sf7o'? Maybe because you are interviewing to work for me? I'm going to be bombarded with three pages of search results that loudly proclaim you to be a criminal, a moral degenerate, and possibly even a horse thief. Is it in the public interest for incorrect information about you to be an incredibly prominent part of your public record? (Bonus points: You can run a lucrative business by poisoning someone's search results, by, say, including their name and alleged wrong-doings in a 'mugshot database', and then demanding that the target pay you money to get removed from this 'mugshot database'... Should search engines be allowed to play their part in this form of extortion?)
- __david__ 7y ago
  I don't really find arguments like yours persuasive. Why should there be such a wide, sweeping law for something that's so obviously a corner case? It's not like there are millions of people being publicly "witch-hunted" every year… What's the everyday use case for this? Getting off of marketing mailing lists?
  - pgcj_poster 7y ago
    Why should there be laws against mass-murder? Hardly anyone does that.
    - stevenhuang 7y ago
      But that's just the thing: I don't recall there being laws specifically against "mass murder". It'd just be multiple counts of murder. I could be wrong though.
  - vkou 7y ago
    It's not a corner case. It happens all the time. Also, 'mugshot indexes' that extort money from you are a big business. Search engines should not be cooperating with, and profiting off that racket.
  - robdachshund 7y ago
    You seem to be totally oblivious of the cancellation culture we now live in
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  I agree with you, but think it might be an orthogonal question. I'm saying we could resolve the indexer question transitively. You're talking about the content question, where I agree you should be able to set the record straight. That one's a can of worms, so I tried to sidestep it.
oarabbus_ 7y ago
>If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to delete it, facebook should do so. If an indexer like google has indexed it, then they should delete it too. Profile photos are an instance. I'm not sure I agree with that. It's certainly valid for them to retain a snapshot of that time with the profile photo available. Or are you suggesting they are expected to alter/modify snapshots (or log data) to cater to after-the-fact decisions?
- Aeolun 7y ago
  The whole point of the right to be forgotten is that they do not retain those snapshots.
  - oarabbus_ 7y ago
    Then I think the "right to be forgotten" is utter bullshit. It's isn't and shouldn't be a right.
  - naniwaduni 7y ago
    The right to be forgotten is a bad idea. At best, it might be reasonable to pursue a right to demand amendment.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
  You post a photo to facebook. You accidentally have the wrong sharing settings, which you notice too late. Should there be no ability to change your mind? We're operating in this "once it's online, it's out of your control" but that's a new kind of thing, and it's shitty.
  - jolmg 7y ago
    > We're operating in this "once it's online, it's out of your control" but that's a new kind of thing, and it's shitty. It's new? I think it's always been like that since the dawn of the internet (and before if you substitute "online" for "published"). The idea that you should have a right to force other entities to forget public information that they saw is what seems to be new. > You accidentally have the wrong sharing settings, which you notice too late. Should there be no ability to change your mind? Well, it's like accidentally telling someone a secret and then wishing there was legislature to force them to forget what you told them (assuming we have a technology for human memory deletion).

Silhouette 7y ago

This is mostly how things already work under EU rules. Neither the original "right to be forgotten" established by a significant court case, which in fact did relate to systems like search engines, nor the subsequent "right to erasure" under the GDPR creates an unrestricted power for data subjects to require all data about them to be deleted regardless of circumstances. For example, you can't take out a bank loan and then force the bank to erase all records of it. There is at least one significant deviation from your "transitive" reasoning, though, in that while EU law might not extend to an original source that is providing misleading/harmful data about someone but is based elsewhere, it can still affect those providing indirect access to that data who are within the scope of EU law.

bilbo0s 7y ago

I think what this case is saying is that Google only has to "forget" that thing in the EU. It's free to keep that information on its servers in Asia and the US for instance. In fact, we can imagine actual legal situations in places like Singapore or the US where that data has to remain available. So I think this just clarifies that it doesn't have to work for every server everywhere in the world.

vkou 7y ago

Suppose that you are the subject of a public interest story, where you randomly witch-hunted as, let's say, a 'pedo guy'. Suppose that once the dust settles, the facts turn out to be entirely in your favor, and a the publications that ran hit pieces against you quietly issue retractions. What will happen when I search Google for '6gvONxR4sf7o'? Maybe because you are interviewing to work for me? I'm going to be bombarded with three pages of search results that loudly proclaim you to be a criminal, a moral degenerate, and possibly even a horse thief. Is it in the public interest for incorrect information about you to be an incredibly prominent part of your public record? (Bonus points: You can run a lucrative business by poisoning someone's search results, by, say, including their name and alleged wrong-doings in a 'mugshot database', and then demanding that the target pay you money to get removed from this 'mugshot database'... Should search engines be allowed to play their part in this form of extortion?)

__david__ 7y ago
I don't really find arguments like yours persuasive. Why should there be such a wide, sweeping law for something that's so obviously a corner case? It's not like there are millions of people being publicly "witch-hunted" every year… What's the everyday use case for this? Getting off of marketing mailing lists?
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  Why should there be laws against mass-murder? Hardly anyone does that.
  - stevenhuang 7y ago
    But that's just the thing: I don't recall there being laws specifically against "mass murder". It'd just be multiple counts of murder. I could be wrong though.
- vkou 7y ago
  It's not a corner case. It happens all the time. Also, 'mugshot indexes' that extort money from you are a big business. Search engines should not be cooperating with, and profiting off that racket.
- robdachshund 7y ago
  You seem to be totally oblivious of the cancellation culture we now live in
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
I agree with you, but think it might be an orthogonal question. I'm saying we could resolve the indexer question transitively. You're talking about the content question, where I agree you should be able to set the record straight. That one's a can of worms, so I tried to sidestep it.

oarabbus_ 7y ago

>If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to delete it, facebook should do so. If an indexer like google has indexed it, then they should delete it too. Profile photos are an instance. I'm not sure I agree with that. It's certainly valid for them to retain a snapshot of that time with the profile photo available. Or are you suggesting they are expected to alter/modify snapshots (or log data) to cater to after-the-fact decisions?

Aeolun 7y ago
The whole point of the right to be forgotten is that they do not retain those snapshots.
- oarabbus_ 7y ago
  Then I think the "right to be forgotten" is utter bullshit. It's isn't and shouldn't be a right.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  The right to be forgotten is a bad idea. At best, it might be reasonable to pursue a right to demand amendment.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
You post a photo to facebook. You accidentally have the wrong sharing settings, which you notice too late. Should there be no ability to change your mind? We're operating in this "once it's online, it's out of your control" but that's a new kind of thing, and it's shitty.
- jolmg 7y ago
  > We're operating in this "once it's online, it's out of your control" but that's a new kind of thing, and it's shitty. It's new? I think it's always been like that since the dawn of the internet (and before if you substitute "online" for "published"). The idea that you should have a right to force other entities to forget public information that they saw is what seems to be new. > You accidentally have the wrong sharing settings, which you notice too late. Should there be no ability to change your mind? Well, it's like accidentally telling someone a secret and then wishing there was legislature to force them to forget what you told them (assuming we have a technology for human memory deletion).