11 ms·

Not disagreeing with you, but... > none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles of our Grundgesetz ... referring to "two or thre

Not disagreeing with you, but... > none of the commenters have ever even read the two or three short articles of our Grundgesetz ... referring to "two or three" specific articles without providing a link, or at least the numbers so we can look them up, is not as useful as it could be.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
bildung 7y ago
It's a simple text that fits on a single web page. Put the word into the search engine of your choice and off you go. Honestly, if one a) isn't capable of grasping the idea that different countries have different foundational laws, and b) isn't capable to find the relevant passages of the Grundgesetz without external help, one should really double check whether commenting on the case at hand is a net plus for the community.
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  I know where to find the Grundgesetz, thank you. > relevant passages That's the place in your post where a link (or article number) would have been useful.
  - bildung 7y ago
    They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling (starts with "Das Urteil" in German). The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Search for "GG", which is the abbreviation of Grundgesetz.
    - tom_mellior 7y ago
      > They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling The first sentence of the ruling says that the paintiff's rights under articles 1 and 2 were affected, but that doesn't mean that those articles are the only relevant parts of the Grundgesetz. > The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Yes, I've had the idea of looking at that myself. That references at least articles 1, 2, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 59, 93 GG, as well as at least the European Convention on Human Rights, the Treaty on European Union, and GDPR. If the OP's point was that this ruling follows directly from "two or three articles" of the Grundgesetz, the OP was wrong -- even if speaking figuratively. The actual reasoning is based on much more than that, including EU law. Unsurprisingly, the issue is much more complex than the OP made it out to be, otherwise it never would have made it past the appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof anyway.
Arnt 7y ago
The Grundgesetz too is written the way it is for reasons, and IMO it's generally better to go back to them. Someone (a chief of police somewhere, IIRC) once put it like this: "We have a tradition in this country that you're sentenced by a fair court, and once you've served your punishment, you have paid your dues. Adding extra sanctions afterwards threatens the fairness of that system." That's a poor misquote on my part, but good principle on his/her, and legible in a way that the Grundgesetz doesn't try to be.
- Intermernet 7y ago
  Yes, but the question of how a society treats someone who is responsible for an action is orthogonal to whether or not a society records and remembers that an action happened. The right to be forgotten tries to alleviate the symptoms of the first question by addressing the second question. It's similar to addressing homelessness by banning the reporting of homelessness. There are complex questions that need to lead to major societal change that can't be solved by removing data from the public record.
  - LeanderK 7y ago
    No, it's about the individual. Once we try to reintegrate somebody into the society they deserve a chance to live without being discriminated against by their past action (after they have served their punishment). So I think it's entirely different than banning the reporting of homelessness. It's similar to deleting your past status as homeless once you've made if back from the streets (assuming such a register exists and should exist...). It's also entirely different than banning statistics about murders, past murders or the trend of murdering people. These statistics are not about the individual.
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      Shouldn’t investors be able to keep little journals in their pockets about prior fraud, and to chat freely about it in their meetings? Shouldn’t a newspaper or public forum be able to discuss a wrongdoing in the context of a history of wrongdoings? The public’s clarity is what’s being traded here. I would argue that the public and any relevant professional groups should never forget fraudsters such as the CEO of workriot or theranos. Another very dubious aspect of the right to be forgotten is that so as long as outside parties exist in a complicated multipolar world, some very major and relevant parties such as landlords or investors will likely play with such knowledge and also be able to afford cover. Meanwhile everyone else has less clarity on the situation.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

bildung 7y ago

It's a simple text that fits on a single web page. Put the word into the search engine of your choice and off you go. Honestly, if one a) isn't capable of grasping the idea that different countries have different foundational laws, and b) isn't capable to find the relevant passages of the Grundgesetz without external help, one should really double check whether commenting on the case at hand is a net plus for the community.

tom_mellior 7y ago
I know where to find the Grundgesetz, thank you. > relevant passages That's the place in your post where a link (or article number) would have been useful.
- bildung 7y ago
  They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling (starts with "Das Urteil" in German). The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Search for "GG", which is the abbreviation of Grundgesetz.
  - tom_mellior 7y ago
    > They are right there in the court ruling you linked below, in the first sentence of the ruling The first sentence of the ruling says that the paintiff's rights under articles 1 and 2 were affected, but that doesn't mean that those articles are the only relevant parts of the Grundgesetz. > The court also detailed the reasoning in the paragraphs below, always referencing the actual laws. Yes, I've had the idea of looking at that myself. That references at least articles 1, 2, 5, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 59, 93 GG, as well as at least the European Convention on Human Rights, the Treaty on European Union, and GDPR. If the OP's point was that this ruling follows directly from "two or three articles" of the Grundgesetz, the OP was wrong -- even if speaking figuratively. The actual reasoning is based on much more than that, including EU law. Unsurprisingly, the issue is much more complex than the OP made it out to be, otherwise it never would have made it past the appeal before the Bundesgerichtshof anyway.

Arnt 7y ago

The Grundgesetz too is written the way it is for reasons, and IMO it's generally better to go back to them. Someone (a chief of police somewhere, IIRC) once put it like this: "We have a tradition in this country that you're sentenced by a fair court, and once you've served your punishment, you have paid your dues. Adding extra sanctions afterwards threatens the fairness of that system." That's a poor misquote on my part, but good principle on his/her, and legible in a way that the Grundgesetz doesn't try to be.

Intermernet 7y ago
Yes, but the question of how a society treats someone who is responsible for an action is orthogonal to whether or not a society records and remembers that an action happened. The right to be forgotten tries to alleviate the symptoms of the first question by addressing the second question. It's similar to addressing homelessness by banning the reporting of homelessness. There are complex questions that need to lead to major societal change that can't be solved by removing data from the public record.
- LeanderK 7y ago
  No, it's about the individual. Once we try to reintegrate somebody into the society they deserve a chance to live without being discriminated against by their past action (after they have served their punishment). So I think it's entirely different than banning the reporting of homelessness. It's similar to deleting your past status as homeless once you've made if back from the streets (assuming such a register exists and should exist...). It's also entirely different than banning statistics about murders, past murders or the trend of murdering people. These statistics are not about the individual.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Shouldn’t investors be able to keep little journals in their pockets about prior fraud, and to chat freely about it in their meetings? Shouldn’t a newspaper or public forum be able to discuss a wrongdoing in the context of a history of wrongdoings? The public’s clarity is what’s being traded here. I would argue that the public and any relevant professional groups should never forget fraudsters such as the CEO of workriot or theranos. Another very dubious aspect of the right to be forgotten is that so as long as outside parties exist in a complicated multipolar world, some very major and relevant parties such as landlords or investors will likely play with such knowledge and also be able to afford cover. Meanwhile everyone else has less clarity on the situation.