4 ms·

I can never understand the ‘right to be forgotten’. How does that not conflict with another right, my ‘right to remember’?

jkrems 4y ago
Because people generally have elevated rights when it concerns themselves? E.g. I have the right not to be touched and it will (generally) outrank your right to touch me.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Touching is very different than remembering... remembering is in my own thoughts, and no one else has rights to that.
hobofan 4y ago
It doesn't. It concerns companies and not you as a person. You can remember whatever you want. Companies are not allowed to do that anymore, as they've repeatedly shown that if they remember your data forever they (intentionally or not) do bad things with them.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  Ok, but am I, as an individual, allowed to store information myself? Could I build a personal search engine that does what Google does, and index everything on the internet? Would I be forced to delete things from my personal search engine if someone wants me to forget? I can't imagine you think someone has the right to tell me to delete something from my own computer in my own house. If you allow that, do I not have the right to share that information with my friends? Strangers? If I can do that as an individual, why does it change if I group together with other individuals and form a company?
  - xdrosenheim 4y ago
    Take this with a bit of salt, as I can not seem to find it anymore, but.... I recall having read something in relation to the GDPR passing, that not even an individual is allowed to hold personal information on someone else, even if it is just through "contacts" on your phone (With permission, you can of course).
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      I can't imagine how this would work... like, how can you make me forget someone's phone number?
    - strgcmc 4y ago
      I believe you would be mistaken about this, as per Recital 18 of GDPR: https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/recital-18-GDPR.htm https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/recital-18-GDPR.htm > (18) This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity. Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities. However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities. Reminder that, "articles" are the regulations themselves, and "recitals" are kind of supplementary FAQ-style clarifications about how/when to apply the articles.
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      Therr might be confusion between being allowed to remember information and passing on information. The private address book can contain entries. But giving apps access to that supposedly private data may be passing on data of others without their consent. Granting whatsapp (or any other app that sends home a copy of the address book) access to the address book without the consent of everyone stored there might be a violation.
  - hobofan 4y ago
    Yes, the line is grey AFAIK (not a lawyer), and usually is drawn at characteristics related to "commercial exploitation" (which might not even mean taking money, but competing with companies that do). It's a similar thing with patents. No one can really forbid (or enforce a ban) you from completely independently coming up with the same idea and executing on it in your garage for personal purposes. However if you then try to commercialize the same idea, you have to face the reality of the world of patents.
  - smokey_circles 4y ago
    I need this to be expanded upon. Presumably you don't mean your own life or data, or that of your friends and family where you can find consent. So what's left is arguing for a right to remember strangers with high degree of accuracy, which is just fucking creepy no matter how you defend it. And no, you don't have that right. Clearly trumped by the right to privacy. Unless you wanna defend some dude sitting outside your house (public property) recording you and your family's comings ans goings in a journal (which is already prohibited under most precedents around privacy, btw). So unless it's some weird exercise in pedantry around accidental collection of background data (should you be forced to delete a photo because it has someone else in the frame? No but you shouldn't be able to make it _generally public_ either, a picture frame in your house is fine. Facebook is not) I've either missed something you or you lack obvious social skills? Help me out here
    - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
      Cool story. I'm using those undelete search engines anyway.
    - cortesoft 4y ago
      No, I am not talking about gathering information about strangers for your own personal use. I am talking about sharing personal information about yourself that involves another person. Here is an example that is not hypothetical. I know someone who was sexually assaulted by someone they knew. They went to the police, and charges were brought. However, there was not enough evidence to convict, and the perpetrator was not convicted. The victim decided to write their story and publish it on their blog. They don’t want to sweep their assault under the rug, and they want other people to know what the perpetrator did to them. They want to protect other people who might not realize what the perpetrator is capable of, and warn them to beware. They also are trying to deal with the fact that they couldn’t get a conviction, and want to know that at least some good can from their experience in protecting possible future victims. So do they have the right to publish this story? Do they have the right to tell friend and family and anyone who might be listening, “don’t trust this guy! He assaulted me and got away with it!” I believe it is everyone’s fundamental right to share their experience, even if that includes someone else in them. Of course, this doesn’t mean you can slander anyone you want, but in this case they are telling the truth. Now, that truth wasn’t enough to convict, but it is enough to not be subject to defamation charges. So should that person be prevented from naming names in their blog? Are they allowed to tell people who go on a date with the perpetrator, “hey, here is what happened to me, be careful.” Or is the perpetrator allowed to just sweep it under the rug and keep the victim silent?
  - gjvnq 4y ago
    > Could I build a personal search engine that does what Google does, and index everything on the internet? Only if you don't make economic or work use of it. See Article 2, Paragaph 2 item c of the GDPR: > Article 2- Material scope > > 1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system. > 2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: > (a) in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law; > (b) by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; > (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity; > (d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.
smt88 4y ago
"Right to be forgotten" is in the context of search engines, not human brains, physical newspapers, books, libraries, etc. Imagine, for example, that you were falsely arrested for murder and then cleared of the crime. It's very likely this would kill your career because employers Googling you would see the articles about your arrest. In Europe, you would have a right to hide these articles from search engines.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  > Imagine, for example, that you were falsely arrested for murder and then cleared of the crime. Ok, but let's also imagine the opposite... let's say I am assaulted, but fail to get a conviction for the person who assaults me. Am I allowed to tell people that I was assaulted by the person? Am I allowed to write down my story of being assaulted, and tell other people about my experience? Can I warn my friends about this person? If I write up my personal experience of being assaulted and post it on my blog, can my assailant order me to take it down just because I was unable to get a conviction? Can someone else force me to take down my own story about my own life, just because it involves someone else? I can't imagine telling a rape victim, "sorry, you don't get to tell people your story because you weren't able to get a conviction"
  - smt88 4y ago
    > Am I allowed to tell people that I was assaulted by the person? Am I allowed to write down my story of being assaulted, and tell other people about my experience? Can I warn my friends about this person? Yes. "Right to be forgotten" applies to corporations, not individuals. > If I write up my personal experience of being assaulted and post it on my blog, can my assailant order me to take it down just because I was unable to get a conviction? No. However, your assailant would likely to able to get it taken down if they sued you for defamation. If a court had failed to find evidence that they assaulted you, they'd probably win. > I can't imagine telling a rape victim, "sorry, you don't get to tell people your story because you weren't able to get a conviction" "Right to be forgotten" (and the somewhat related GDPR) don't do this. They just tell corporations that they can't store data on the assailant (or the victim) if either of those people requests the data be deleted. This exact scenario is extremely common due to defamation laws, though.
userbinator 4y ago
It's basically a "right to rewrite history", and I think we should strongly oppose such. History is immutable, it can only be appended to. I'm not going to take this in a political direction, but make of that what you will.

jkrems 4y ago

Because people generally have elevated rights when it concerns themselves? E.g. I have the right not to be touched and it will (generally) outrank your right to touch me.

cortesoft 4y ago
Touching is very different than remembering... remembering is in my own thoughts, and no one else has rights to that.

hobofan 4y ago

It doesn't. It concerns companies and not you as a person. You can remember whatever you want. Companies are not allowed to do that anymore, as they've repeatedly shown that if they remember your data forever they (intentionally or not) do bad things with them.

cortesoft 4y ago
Ok, but am I, as an individual, allowed to store information myself? Could I build a personal search engine that does what Google does, and index everything on the internet? Would I be forced to delete things from my personal search engine if someone wants me to forget? I can't imagine you think someone has the right to tell me to delete something from my own computer in my own house. If you allow that, do I not have the right to share that information with my friends? Strangers? If I can do that as an individual, why does it change if I group together with other individuals and form a company?
- xdrosenheim 4y ago
  Take this with a bit of salt, as I can not seem to find it anymore, but.... I recall having read something in relation to the GDPR passing, that not even an individual is allowed to hold personal information on someone else, even if it is just through "contacts" on your phone (With permission, you can of course).
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    I can't imagine how this would work... like, how can you make me forget someone's phone number?
  - strgcmc 4y ago
    I believe you would be mistaken about this, as per Recital 18 of GDPR: https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/recital-18-GDPR.htm https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/recital-18-GDPR.htm > (18) This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity. Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities. However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities. Reminder that, "articles" are the regulations themselves, and "recitals" are kind of supplementary FAQ-style clarifications about how/when to apply the articles.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    Therr might be confusion between being allowed to remember information and passing on information. The private address book can contain entries. But giving apps access to that supposedly private data may be passing on data of others without their consent. Granting whatsapp (or any other app that sends home a copy of the address book) access to the address book without the consent of everyone stored there might be a violation.
- hobofan 4y ago
  Yes, the line is grey AFAIK (not a lawyer), and usually is drawn at characteristics related to "commercial exploitation" (which might not even mean taking money, but competing with companies that do). It's a similar thing with patents. No one can really forbid (or enforce a ban) you from completely independently coming up with the same idea and executing on it in your garage for personal purposes. However if you then try to commercialize the same idea, you have to face the reality of the world of patents.
- smokey_circles 4y ago
  I need this to be expanded upon. Presumably you don't mean your own life or data, or that of your friends and family where you can find consent. So what's left is arguing for a right to remember strangers with high degree of accuracy, which is just fucking creepy no matter how you defend it. And no, you don't have that right. Clearly trumped by the right to privacy. Unless you wanna defend some dude sitting outside your house (public property) recording you and your family's comings ans goings in a journal (which is already prohibited under most precedents around privacy, btw). So unless it's some weird exercise in pedantry around accidental collection of background data (should you be forced to delete a photo because it has someone else in the frame? No but you shouldn't be able to make it _generally public_ either, a picture frame in your house is fine. Facebook is not) I've either missed something you or you lack obvious social skills? Help me out here
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    Cool story. I'm using those undelete search engines anyway.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    No, I am not talking about gathering information about strangers for your own personal use. I am talking about sharing personal information about yourself that involves another person. Here is an example that is not hypothetical. I know someone who was sexually assaulted by someone they knew. They went to the police, and charges were brought. However, there was not enough evidence to convict, and the perpetrator was not convicted. The victim decided to write their story and publish it on their blog. They don’t want to sweep their assault under the rug, and they want other people to know what the perpetrator did to them. They want to protect other people who might not realize what the perpetrator is capable of, and warn them to beware. They also are trying to deal with the fact that they couldn’t get a conviction, and want to know that at least some good can from their experience in protecting possible future victims. So do they have the right to publish this story? Do they have the right to tell friend and family and anyone who might be listening, “don’t trust this guy! He assaulted me and got away with it!” I believe it is everyone’s fundamental right to share their experience, even if that includes someone else in them. Of course, this doesn’t mean you can slander anyone you want, but in this case they are telling the truth. Now, that truth wasn’t enough to convict, but it is enough to not be subject to defamation charges. So should that person be prevented from naming names in their blog? Are they allowed to tell people who go on a date with the perpetrator, “hey, here is what happened to me, be careful.” Or is the perpetrator allowed to just sweep it under the rug and keep the victim silent?
- gjvnq 4y ago
  > Could I build a personal search engine that does what Google does, and index everything on the internet? Only if you don't make economic or work use of it. See Article 2, Paragaph 2 item c of the GDPR: > Article 2- Material scope > > 1. This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means and to the processing other than by automated means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system. > 2. This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data: > (a) in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Union law; > (b) by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Chapter 2 of Title V of the TEU; > (c) by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity; > (d) by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.

smt88 4y ago

"Right to be forgotten" is in the context of search engines, not human brains, physical newspapers, books, libraries, etc. Imagine, for example, that you were falsely arrested for murder and then cleared of the crime. It's very likely this would kill your career because employers Googling you would see the articles about your arrest. In Europe, you would have a right to hide these articles from search engines.

cortesoft 4y ago
> Imagine, for example, that you were falsely arrested for murder and then cleared of the crime. Ok, but let's also imagine the opposite... let's say I am assaulted, but fail to get a conviction for the person who assaults me. Am I allowed to tell people that I was assaulted by the person? Am I allowed to write down my story of being assaulted, and tell other people about my experience? Can I warn my friends about this person? If I write up my personal experience of being assaulted and post it on my blog, can my assailant order me to take it down just because I was unable to get a conviction? Can someone else force me to take down my own story about my own life, just because it involves someone else? I can't imagine telling a rape victim, "sorry, you don't get to tell people your story because you weren't able to get a conviction"
- smt88 4y ago
  > Am I allowed to tell people that I was assaulted by the person? Am I allowed to write down my story of being assaulted, and tell other people about my experience? Can I warn my friends about this person? Yes. "Right to be forgotten" applies to corporations, not individuals. > If I write up my personal experience of being assaulted and post it on my blog, can my assailant order me to take it down just because I was unable to get a conviction? No. However, your assailant would likely to able to get it taken down if they sued you for defamation. If a court had failed to find evidence that they assaulted you, they'd probably win. > I can't imagine telling a rape victim, "sorry, you don't get to tell people your story because you weren't able to get a conviction" "Right to be forgotten" (and the somewhat related GDPR) don't do this. They just tell corporations that they can't store data on the assailant (or the victim) if either of those people requests the data be deleted. This exact scenario is extremely common due to defamation laws, though.

userbinator 4y ago

It's basically a "right to rewrite history", and I think we should strongly oppose such. History is immutable, it can only be appended to. I'm not going to take this in a political direction, but make of that what you will.