4 ms·

> Your problem is that you gave consent and chose to publish your PII and now want it revoked globally long after the fact. GDPR Art 17: The data subject shal

> Your problem is that you gave consent and chose to publish your PII and now want it revoked globally long after the fact. GDPR Art 17: The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies: [...] the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based [...] 2. Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase the personal data, the controller, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, shall take __reasonable steps__, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data. > Nobody expects to be able to unpublish a book such that it cannot be recovered or reprinted after copyrights expire Government do and it can be done: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_governments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_books_banned_by_gove...

dahart 4y ago
The part you quoted clearly states this applies to data the “controller” made public, and not to data the user chose to make public: “Where the controller has made the personal data public” Again, GDPR does not protect you from yourself: it can’t! And we don’t want it to, we don’t want a surveillance state that bans public information and removes control, nor do we want people to censor history after the fact, right? As has always been the case, privacy needs to be considered before publishing information about yourself, not after. Banning books is different from what I suggested, that’s the government deciding something is illegal, not the author changing their mind. Banning books also doesn’t cause them to be forgotten. It’s not a great example of what @BoppreH is wishing for, wouldn’t you agree?
- number6 4y ago
  > As has always been the case, privacy needs to be considered before publishing information about yourself, not after. How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. The processor has to have a legal basis for processing your data even if it is publicly available. One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available, but consent can be revoked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten > The right to privacy constitutes information that is not publicly known, whereas the right to be forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time and not allowing third parties to access the information. I think you could make a case under GDPR where making the model is data processing and the BoppreH could demand to be erased for the dataset. Why is he in the dataset in the first place? Why is anyone? Am I in it? Aren't this legitimate questions?
  - dahart 4y ago
    > One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available I’m not arguing that all publicly available information implies consent (it does not), I’m simply repeating what @BoppreH already said : that he gave the consent in this case. The reason we need GDPR and other privacy laws is primarily for cases when someone else decides to publish your PII. This is different, this is a case of the user publishing their own PII and allowing it to be public for a long time. > How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. Hehe, are you joking? You must be young because people have been expecting this information explosion and archival for a hundred years and more, and people were talking about using the whole internet for AI training ever since the internet and neural networks were invented, complaining that we didn’t have the computational power yet, more than 50 years ago. Archive.org (saving the entire internet) and Google (indexing the entire internet) both launched almost thirty years ago. Ten years ago there were already debates that could stand in for this very thread. The AI model is completely irrelevant here, and it has been from the very first comment. AI isn’t @BoppreH’s problem, his problem is that he willingly published his name on the internet and now doesn’t want people to know it, via Google or any search index. The AI did not glean any PII about him that Google and Bing and multiple other sites hadn’t already indexed. As to how … Well, there are sayings out there older than dirt that clearly discuss how to keep your things private. The so-called “New York Times” rule is pretty well known, but is just one example in a class of such general advice that is probably as old as the printing press, and comes in many variations. Don’t do or write down anything you wouldn’t want printed on the front page of the New York Times. If it’s private, keep it private. * BTW I’m sure you saw that above the WP sentence you quoted, there was a lot of text that broadly if indirectly supports what I’m trying to say. The right to be forgotten isn’t the right to be forgotten from all online existence, it’s not something you can use to force all published information about you for all time to disappear at everyone else’s expense, it’s a right that people can sometimes exercise to fix specific mistakes, and it gives specific examples such as revenge porn. And again, most of the examples involve someone else publishing your info without consent. Wishing the right to be forgotten gave us editorial power over history is extremely problematic, as was stated right on that Wikipedia page.
    - 4y ago

dahart 4y ago

The part you quoted clearly states this applies to data the “controller” made public, and not to data the user chose to make public: “Where the controller has made the personal data public” Again, GDPR does not protect you from yourself: it can’t! And we don’t want it to, we don’t want a surveillance state that bans public information and removes control, nor do we want people to censor history after the fact, right? As has always been the case, privacy needs to be considered before publishing information about yourself, not after. Banning books is different from what I suggested, that’s the government deciding something is illegal, not the author changing their mind. Banning books also doesn’t cause them to be forgotten. It’s not a great example of what @BoppreH is wishing for, wouldn’t you agree?

number6 4y ago
> As has always been the case, privacy needs to be considered before publishing information about yourself, not after. How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. The processor has to have a legal basis for processing your data even if it is publicly available. One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available, but consent can be revoked. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten > The right to privacy constitutes information that is not publicly known, whereas the right to be forgotten involves removing information that was publicly known at a certain time and not allowing third parties to access the information. I think you could make a case under GDPR where making the model is data processing and the BoppreH could demand to be erased for the dataset. Why is he in the dataset in the first place? Why is anyone? Am I in it? Aren't this legitimate questions?
- dahart 4y ago
  > One could argue that there is some kind of consent if the data is publicly available I’m not arguing that all publicly available information implies consent (it does not), I’m simply repeating what @BoppreH already said : that he gave the consent in this case. The reason we need GDPR and other privacy laws is primarily for cases when someone else decides to publish your PII. This is different, this is a case of the user publishing their own PII and allowing it to be public for a long time. > How? 10 years ago one could not expect that all of the internet is used as training data for an AI model. Hehe, are you joking? You must be young because people have been expecting this information explosion and archival for a hundred years and more, and people were talking about using the whole internet for AI training ever since the internet and neural networks were invented, complaining that we didn’t have the computational power yet, more than 50 years ago. Archive.org (saving the entire internet) and Google (indexing the entire internet) both launched almost thirty years ago. Ten years ago there were already debates that could stand in for this very thread. The AI model is completely irrelevant here, and it has been from the very first comment. AI isn’t @BoppreH’s problem, his problem is that he willingly published his name on the internet and now doesn’t want people to know it, via Google or any search index. The AI did not glean any PII about him that Google and Bing and multiple other sites hadn’t already indexed. As to how … Well, there are sayings out there older than dirt that clearly discuss how to keep your things private. The so-called “New York Times” rule is pretty well known, but is just one example in a class of such general advice that is probably as old as the printing press, and comes in many variations. Don’t do or write down anything you wouldn’t want printed on the front page of the New York Times. If it’s private, keep it private. * BTW I’m sure you saw that above the WP sentence you quoted, there was a lot of text that broadly if indirectly supports what I’m trying to say. The right to be forgotten isn’t the right to be forgotten from all online existence, it’s not something you can use to force all published information about you for all time to disappear at everyone else’s expense, it’s a right that people can sometimes exercise to fix specific mistakes, and it gives specific examples such as revenge porn. And again, most of the examples involve someone else publishing your info without consent. Wishing the right to be forgotten gave us editorial power over history is extremely problematic, as was stated right on that Wikipedia page.
  - 4y ago