4 ms·

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 a

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.
  - LeanderK 7y ago
    Of course it's a tradeoff and needs to be balanced. The right to be forgotten was never about censoring information itself, just making it less available (e.g. newspapers do not need to erase names etc.). The more publicity your case had, the less like it gets to be forgotten. But I think you touch the issue. I don't think the answer to your questions is always an unconditional yes, the opposite question can also be agreed upon. There is no right or wrong. If our goal as society is rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders (and not punishment as an end to itself), then starting with a clean slate after serving your sentence is a fair solution. Shouldn't people have the chance to leave their past behind and not be followed by their mistakes for the end of their live? They only have one. But if we choose this path, we have to be realistic, since your question are certainly important consequences. > 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. I agree, but I think is on the "should not be forgotten" part of the balance. I think it may highlight cultural differences. In another comment "freedom of speech" in germany was brought up. It's a similar tradeoff there and we rely on a reasonable legal system to implement it correctly and balance the tradeoffs. I agree even stronger with our approach on "freedom of speech" and certainly do not want rights as phrased for example in the US constitution. In my point of view it's an important lesson from our history in germany. Its something I very, very strongly agree with.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
Arnt 7y ago
Is it really similar? I think not. The right to be forgotten doesn't ban reporting, it blocks two-second searches of someone's name, and thus raises the price of finding something hidden in someone's past back to the level it used to have before Google came along with effective web searches. You can still go down to the public library and do the same search as you could in 1995 or 1971. What Google changed and the right to be forgotten changed back is the availability of cheap, quick searches. The reporting is still legal, so I can't see significant similarity.

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.
- LeanderK 7y ago
  Of course it's a tradeoff and needs to be balanced. The right to be forgotten was never about censoring information itself, just making it less available (e.g. newspapers do not need to erase names etc.). The more publicity your case had, the less like it gets to be forgotten. But I think you touch the issue. I don't think the answer to your questions is always an unconditional yes, the opposite question can also be agreed upon. There is no right or wrong. If our goal as society is rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders (and not punishment as an end to itself), then starting with a clean slate after serving your sentence is a fair solution. Shouldn't people have the chance to leave their past behind and not be followed by their mistakes for the end of their live? They only have one. But if we choose this path, we have to be realistic, since your question are certainly important consequences. > 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. I agree, but I think is on the "should not be forgotten" part of the balance. I think it may highlight cultural differences. In another comment "freedom of speech" in germany was brought up. It's a similar tradeoff there and we rely on a reasonable legal system to implement it correctly and balance the tradeoffs. I agree even stronger with our approach on "freedom of speech" and certainly do not want rights as phrased for example in the US constitution. In my point of view it's an important lesson from our history in germany. Its something I very, very strongly agree with.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

Arnt 7y ago

Is it really similar? I think not. The right to be forgotten doesn't ban reporting, it blocks two-second searches of someone's name, and thus raises the price of finding something hidden in someone's past back to the level it used to have before Google came along with effective web searches. You can still go down to the public library and do the same search as you could in 1995 or 1971. What Google changed and the right to be forgotten changed back is the availability of cheap, quick searches. The reporting is still legal, so I can't see significant similarity.