4 ms·

That sounds rather farfetched. The "right to be forgotten" is mostly useful for politicians who want to censor scandals from votes doing a quick google search b

That sounds rather farfetched. The "right to be forgotten" is mostly useful for politicians who want to censor scandals from votes doing a quick google search before deciding who to vote for. Someone who wanted to carry out an attack would be willing to spend 10 minutes extra to find the information, or they would never be able to follow through with their plans anyway.

fleddr 4y ago
It's not far-fetched at all. It has become increasingly common on social media where a post that does not directly call for violence, still triggers all kinds of real world harassment. Musk himself is guilty of this too. The right to be forgotten is not designed for high profile public figures, quite the opposite. Public figures in a way are always screwed from a privacy/reputation point of view. Instead, the right to be forgotten is to protect common people. Maybe as a teenager when drunk you posted something stupid on social media. Which shouldn't haunt you for the rest of your life. Maybe a nude photo got leaked. Maybe you made a mistake at work, and don't want to be unhirable for the rest of your life.
- giaour 4y ago
  A key principle of the right to be forgotten is that no one should be perpetually burdened by a past they have shed. Hard to see how that applies to future flight plans for a private jet!
  - fleddr 4y ago
    The original point of discussion was whether republishing data that is already public can be harmful. My answer to that is 100% yes. You make people aware of data that they may not have been aware of before. Do this to a large audience and it only takes 1 to be triggered into a harmful idea.
    - giaour 4y ago
      You could make the same argument about news articles on current court proceedings, professional licensure records, or even Amber alerts, but you would almost certainly lose in court if you sought prior restraint of such speech. Restrictions on republishing data always have limiting principles (at least in US and EU law).

fleddr 4y ago

It's not far-fetched at all. It has become increasingly common on social media where a post that does not directly call for violence, still triggers all kinds of real world harassment. Musk himself is guilty of this too. The right to be forgotten is not designed for high profile public figures, quite the opposite. Public figures in a way are always screwed from a privacy/reputation point of view. Instead, the right to be forgotten is to protect common people. Maybe as a teenager when drunk you posted something stupid on social media. Which shouldn't haunt you for the rest of your life. Maybe a nude photo got leaked. Maybe you made a mistake at work, and don't want to be unhirable for the rest of your life.

giaour 4y ago
A key principle of the right to be forgotten is that no one should be perpetually burdened by a past they have shed. Hard to see how that applies to future flight plans for a private jet!
- fleddr 4y ago
  The original point of discussion was whether republishing data that is already public can be harmful. My answer to that is 100% yes. You make people aware of data that they may not have been aware of before. Do this to a large audience and it only takes 1 to be triggered into a harmful idea.
  - giaour 4y ago
    You could make the same argument about news articles on current court proceedings, professional licensure records, or even Amber alerts, but you would almost certainly lose in court if you sought prior restraint of such speech. Restrictions on republishing data always have limiting principles (at least in US and EU law).