5 ms·

There is no right to be forgotten in the US.

adventured 6y ago
Fortunately. I'm glad to be able to read the NYT story courtesy of the Way Back Machine and attempt to learn more about the context.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  You get to read this article, and a bunch of people have false accusations about them stuck at the top of google forever.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    Without making a value judgment either way: the right to be informed is inseparable from the risk of being misinformed.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      What does a "right to be informed" mean, exactly? Actions based on right to be forgotten don't affect what you're allowed to know or what you tell individuals, they affect what you're allowed to publish to the entire world. Much like publishing a photo of someone; sometimes you need permission.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        This is a poor analogy. There is no particular reason to assign someone priveleges over the public facts of their life for example convictions trials misdeeds. In fact by definition no evil doer would ever give such permission. Would you ask a rapist or their victim for permission to discuss the crime? RTBF isn't ownership of information about self it is a privelege for villains to censor their victims and the general public.
        Kbelicius 6y ago
        > it is a privelege for villains to censor their victims and the general public. This is repeated every time that the RTBF is mentioned yet none has ever given an example of RTBF being abused. Can you give an example?
        Mauricebranagh 6y ago
        The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed. Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does.
        Kbelicius 6y ago
        > The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed. IIRC it was a private person who wanted to remove an article about his house being foreclosed due to his debts. His request to remove the article was not granted since the article was lawful, but the court agreed that google should stop pointing to that article since it was like 15-20 years old and the man had paid of his dept and his house was no longer foreclosed. What do you find villainous about that? > Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does. The right to be forgotten has nothing to do with publishing records of something. It is about search engines not pointing to something published in the past that can have an adverse effect on somebody today while the published information is irrelevant to anybody today ... Publishing Names and Addresses of accused persons and their Mugshots is a great example. Publishing that information is relevant since the person is being accused at the time of publishing. A years later the person is found innocent. It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine but can have an adverse affect on the individual if he is looking for a job or whatever. For that very reason a convicted criminal in my country (in the EU) can get a document saying that they are not a convicted criminal after they paid their dues to the society. The point is that people make mistakes and there is no good reason (in the very wast majority of cases) that those mistakes should follow them their whole lives. The point is rehabilitation not eternal punishment. That is a reason why the right to be forgotten exists.
  - taway232345 6y ago
    You are absolutely right, and for anyone who disagrees, think back to last summer's "Central Park Karen" case -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_birdwatching_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_birdwatching_inci... Had the victim not been a unique UNION of {phone with battery + full video of scene with audio + harvard grad + well dressed} he would likely have ended up arrested, probably tried, and quite possibly convicted/pleaded, possibly even end up on a sexual predator listing. Think of how many times this has happened. Now think of how star-crossed lucky the victim here was that he had irrefutable evidence to clear the false accusation.
    - leereeves 6y ago
      > By his own account, Christian then said, "Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it," I hadn't heard that detail before. I can see how someone might legitimately interpret that as a threat. Imagine being in her shoes: you're peacefully walking your dog in the park when a stranger confronts you, says "I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it", and approaches your dog. Haven't we all seen enough videos to be concerned about what might happen next? From what I can tell, he seems like a good guy, and I don't think anything bad would have happened, but she couldn't know that at the time. Which all reinforces the larger point: when the Internet reacts to a story, important details are buried and overlooked. Politicians and activists ignore the particulars of the case and shape it to fit their own agenda. The media sensationalizes the story for clicks. An outraged mob dismisses nuance as x-ism or y-phobia. Employers acquiesce to the demands of the mob simply to avoid becoming a target. The right to be forgotten is important, because Internet justice is rarely just.

Fortunately. I'm glad to be able to read the NYT story courtesy of the Way Back Machine and attempt to learn more about the context.

Dylan16807 6y ago
You get to read this article, and a bunch of people have false accusations about them stuck at the top of google forever.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Without making a value judgment either way: the right to be informed is inseparable from the risk of being misinformed.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    What does a "right to be informed" mean, exactly? Actions based on right to be forgotten don't affect what you're allowed to know or what you tell individuals, they affect what you're allowed to publish to the entire world. Much like publishing a photo of someone; sometimes you need permission.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      This is a poor analogy. There is no particular reason to assign someone priveleges over the public facts of their life for example convictions trials misdeeds. In fact by definition no evil doer would ever give such permission. Would you ask a rapist or their victim for permission to discuss the crime? RTBF isn't ownership of information about self it is a privelege for villains to censor their victims and the general public.
      - Kbelicius 6y ago
        > it is a privelege for villains to censor their victims and the general public. This is repeated every time that the RTBF is mentioned yet none has ever given an example of RTBF being abused. Can you give an example?
        Mauricebranagh 6y ago
        The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed. Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does.
        Kbelicius 6y ago
        > The originator in the EU was a business man who wanted a mater of public record (some fine I believe) removed. IIRC it was a private person who wanted to remove an article about his house being foreclosed due to his debts. His request to remove the article was not granted since the article was lawful, but the court agreed that google should stop pointing to that article since it was like 15-20 years old and the man had paid of his dept and his house was no longer foreclosed. What do you find villainous about that? > Does raise the q should states publish so much information they collect Swedish tax records, Names and Addresses of accused persons (lots of countries) publishing Mugshots like the US does. The right to be forgotten has nothing to do with publishing records of something. It is about search engines not pointing to something published in the past that can have an adverse effect on somebody today while the published information is irrelevant to anybody today ... Publishing Names and Addresses of accused persons and their Mugshots is a great example. Publishing that information is relevant since the person is being accused at the time of publishing. A years later the person is found innocent. It is still true that the individual was accused but after being found innocent the information of them being accused isn't particularly relevant to anybody typing their name in a search engine but can have an adverse affect on the individual if he is looking for a job or whatever. For that very reason a convicted criminal in my country (in the EU) can get a document saying that they are not a convicted criminal after they paid their dues to the society. The point is that people make mistakes and there is no good reason (in the very wast majority of cases) that those mistakes should follow them their whole lives. The point is rehabilitation not eternal punishment. That is a reason why the right to be forgotten exists.
- taway232345 6y ago
  You are absolutely right, and for anyone who disagrees, think back to last summer's "Central Park Karen" case -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_birdwatching_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_birdwatching_inci... Had the victim not been a unique UNION of {phone with battery + full video of scene with audio + harvard grad + well dressed} he would likely have ended up arrested, probably tried, and quite possibly convicted/pleaded, possibly even end up on a sexual predator listing. Think of how many times this has happened. Now think of how star-crossed lucky the victim here was that he had irrefutable evidence to clear the false accusation.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    > By his own account, Christian then said, "Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it," I hadn't heard that detail before. I can see how someone might legitimately interpret that as a threat. Imagine being in her shoes: you're peacefully walking your dog in the park when a stranger confronts you, says "I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it", and approaches your dog. Haven't we all seen enough videos to be concerned about what might happen next? From what I can tell, he seems like a good guy, and I don't think anything bad would have happened, but she couldn't know that at the time. Which all reinforces the larger point: when the Internet reacts to a story, important details are buried and overlooked. Politicians and activists ignore the particulars of the case and shape it to fit their own agenda. The media sensationalizes the story for clicks. An outraged mob dismisses nuance as x-ism or y-phobia. Employers acquiesce to the demands of the mob simply to avoid becoming a target. The right to be forgotten is important, because Internet justice is rarely just.