4 ms·

> I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to kno

> I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know. Europe right to be forgotten only applies to publicly indexed searches, not the content - according to the top court Nothing you said seems to be the reality that exists So just bookmark a page and revisit it later, the tools have existed since the 90s

curt15 7y ago
But if there were more people like Kim Peek who could recall anything they read, like a walking, talking, search engine, should they be muzzled online?
- hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
  If what they say breaks a law yes. For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. This is a classic instance where right to be forgotten is used.
  - curt15 7y ago
    >For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. But in that case, wouldn't a news website that provides its archives of old crime stories for the public to read be guilty of that offence? If certain information is illegal to be disseminated, why isn't its actual source held liable or otherwise subject to takedown?
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    Some* crimes anyway.
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      Any sentence under threshold will become spent. Some crimes will still show on DBS checks.
  - thfuran 7y ago
    If it's already illegal, then I don't see how a right to be forgotten changes anything in that case.
    - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
      It means the search engines can't stick their fingers in their ears and ignore real people's legitimate needs to put their past mistakes behind them.
      - cortesoft 7y ago
        What about people's legitimate need to share the wrongs that people have done to them? Or people's legitimate need to know someone's history? Imagine you meet someone on a dating site, and they assault you on your date. They serve their time, and now have a 'right to be forgotten'. Do future potential dates not get to know that their date that night has been convicted of assault against someone else, also on a first date? Am I not allowed to warn those people?
        hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Once the crime is spent no.
      - thfuran 7y ago
        That makes no sense. If it was already illegal to publish that information then they already weren't allowed to do that. Maybe this law has harsher penalties but, generally speaking, making something double-illegal isn't meaningful.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    This is so bizarre to me. So lets say I am assaulted, and that person serves time and then is freed. After a certain period of time, I am no longer allowed to write about my experience online? I am not allowed to warn people, "hey, this guy assaulted me 10 years ago!". Now, suppose he was never convicted. Am I allowed to write about my experience now?
Hitton 7y ago
That's not true, just yesterday there was trending article[1] about journalist who was forced to take down the article. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308
- rolltiide 7y ago
  The use has broadened as member states interpret it differently The EU top court has been consistent that only de-referencing needs to occur
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
cortesoft 7y ago
So I can write about it, but I can't help anyone find it to read? I am not saying I have the right to a personal diary, I am saying I should have the right to tell my story to whoever I want, and to share it however widely I want, and to help other people find what I have to say however I want.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  You still have that right, stop making up arm chair legalese. Your Search Engine Optimization is supposed to fail within the EU. Telling people in person, telling people in group chats, telling people anywhere you want is fine. According to the top court, the different service indexing all that stuff, within the EU, has to de-reference.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    You can call it 'arm chair legalese', but there is a sister comment that has an example of someone being forced to take down an article they wrote. And forcing search engines to remove the content is certainly, in my opinion, infringing on my right to share my story.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      Yeah thats my response under that comment too

curt15 7y ago

But if there were more people like Kim Peek who could recall anything they read, like a walking, talking, search engine, should they be muzzled online?

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
If what they say breaks a law yes. For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. This is a classic instance where right to be forgotten is used.
- curt15 7y ago
  >For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. But in that case, wouldn't a news website that provides its archives of old crime stories for the public to read be guilty of that offence? If certain information is illegal to be disseminated, why isn't its actual source held liable or otherwise subject to takedown?
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Some* crimes anyway.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    Any sentence under threshold will become spent. Some crimes will still show on DBS checks.
- thfuran 7y ago
  If it's already illegal, then I don't see how a right to be forgotten changes anything in that case.
  - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
    It means the search engines can't stick their fingers in their ears and ignore real people's legitimate needs to put their past mistakes behind them.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      What about people's legitimate need to share the wrongs that people have done to them? Or people's legitimate need to know someone's history? Imagine you meet someone on a dating site, and they assault you on your date. They serve their time, and now have a 'right to be forgotten'. Do future potential dates not get to know that their date that night has been convicted of assault against someone else, also on a first date? Am I not allowed to warn those people?
      - hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
        Once the crime is spent no.
    - thfuran 7y ago
      That makes no sense. If it was already illegal to publish that information then they already weren't allowed to do that. Maybe this law has harsher penalties but, generally speaking, making something double-illegal isn't meaningful.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  This is so bizarre to me. So lets say I am assaulted, and that person serves time and then is freed. After a certain period of time, I am no longer allowed to write about my experience online? I am not allowed to warn people, "hey, this guy assaulted me 10 years ago!". Now, suppose he was never convicted. Am I allowed to write about my experience now?

Hitton 7y ago

That's not true, just yesterday there was trending article[1] about journalist who was forced to take down the article. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308

rolltiide 7y ago
The use has broadened as member states interpret it differently The EU top court has been consistent that only de-referencing needs to occur
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

cortesoft 7y ago

So I can write about it, but I can't help anyone find it to read? I am not saying I have the right to a personal diary, I am saying I should have the right to tell my story to whoever I want, and to share it however widely I want, and to help other people find what I have to say however I want.

rolltiide 7y ago
You still have that right, stop making up arm chair legalese. Your Search Engine Optimization is supposed to fail within the EU. Telling people in person, telling people in group chats, telling people anywhere you want is fine. According to the top court, the different service indexing all that stuff, within the EU, has to de-reference.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  You can call it 'arm chair legalese', but there is a sister comment that has an example of someone being forced to take down an article they wrote. And forcing search engines to remove the content is certainly, in my opinion, infringing on my right to share my story.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Yeah thats my response under that comment too