5 ms·

Off topic, but: > The right to erasure is also known as ‘the right to be forgotten’. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/indiv

Off topic, but: > The right to erasure is also known as ‘the right to be forgotten’. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...

kragen 3y ago
no such right exists; that would be like the right to rob with impunity of course clever demagogues and rhetoricians can write such things into legislation, just as they can write legislation that claims you have no right to speak freely, but that just makes the legislation incorrect, like the famous legislation declaring pi to be exactly 3
- bowsamic 3y ago
  I'm confused, on what kind of metaphysical plane do you think rights live if you think they exist independently from the law?
  - kragen 3y ago
    — We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... the US Declaration of Independence, expressing the motivation for independence from Europe) Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, (...) All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural" moral, religious or even biological order which is independent of transitory human laws or traditions. Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law, although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas. The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics. Some of the early Church fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. In the Seventeenth Century Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor. Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non-esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology. John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one. The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity. The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophies_of_human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophies_of_h... Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights. (...) Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments. The idea of human rights derives from theories of natural rights. Those rejecting a distinction between human rights and natural rights view human rights as the successor that is not dependent on natural law, natural theology, or Christian theological doctrine. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... more generally, though, the idea that good and evil can exist independently of law is foundational to most philosophical systems; if you reject that, you necessarily reject that laws can be evil in ways that go beyond mere internal inconsistency though they are not based on conceptions of individual rights, taoism, confucianism, and almost any kind of theism posit a moral authority that is higher than any human law and can therefore condemn it
    - bowsamic 3y ago
      I don't think that secular society posits some kind of natural inalienable objective moral law. I'm sure you know this but many, many people do not believe in objective morality
      - kragen 3y ago
        almost all secular people do in fact believe in objective morality to some degree, though you can occasionally find a pure moral relativist or legalist remember that the holocaust, the great leap forward, gulag, the imprisonment of galileo, daily human sacrifice to the aztec sun god, and witch-burnings in the spanish inquisition were not just legal but legally required therefore, anyone who condemns one of them is appealing to a moral standard they consider superior to, at least, the legal systems of the countries in question at the time
        bowsamic 3y ago
        I have never met a secular person who appeals to an objective moral standard personally
        kragen 3y ago
        [flagged]
      - abecedarius 3y ago
        The idea of rights can be seen to emerge in large part from multiagent decision theory. This should not be surprising because moral intuitions arose as humans evolved living in groups. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.htm...
        kragen 3y ago
        this is a very interesting article; thank you
        3y ago
- 0ct4via 3y ago
  "no such right exists" - the law would disagree with you on that one. "Under Article 17 of the UK GDPR individuals have the right to have personal data erased. This is also known as the 'right to be forgotten'." [1] "The right to be forgotten appears in Recitals 65 and 66 and in Article 17 of the GDPR. It states, “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”" [2] [1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re... [2] https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224 https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten This obviously varies depending on jurisdictions, but a great number of users (EU citizens, and people resident in the EU - but additionally, the UK) absolutely have a "right to be forgotten," and brazenly claiming "no such right exists" is ignorant and fallacious, and such unfounded arrogance is a distinctly USian trait. For someone who purportedly lives outside the US, you don't seem to grasp that there are laws in other countries than the US.
  - kragen 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - 0ct4via 3y ago
      You'd do well to read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html -- all that baseless assumption and disingenuous false accusation really isn't in any way civil or useful... but then when you're cheap enough to bring the Holocaust into a discussion about data protection legislation, you're really not in a position on ethics - or indeed anything else.
      - kitanata 3y ago
        [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dontupvoteme 3y ago
  digital computing machines did not exist when philosophers and thinkers were busy coming up with and refining the concepts of rights between antiquity and relatively recent human history. If you were familiar with the fallibility of human memory you wouldn't have made such a post some of us practice sufficiently OK OPSEC to prevent this from becoming an issue but it doesn't mean that we don't have to look out for the greater good of society against unwarranted centralization of technological power. feel free to breach such legislation if you deem it in your best interests
- coldtea 3y ago
  >no such right exists; that would be like the right to rob with impunity No, it's the same kind of thing as having your records "sealed", to not let a past deed haunt you. Not even sure what kind of logic jumps one has to make to equate something like this to "robbing with inpunity". For starters the punishment to robbing isn't remembrance of your robbing, it's jail time or fine etc. And, fun fact, the aforementioned "records being sealed" can even be applied to someone who e.g. did a robbery or other crime as a juvenile. Now, since a "right to be forgotten" does explicitly exist in EU and other jurisdictions, I'm not sure what denying its existance means. If you mean "there's no such right" as a thing in itself, outside laws and treaties and jurisdictions, then the same is true for any right. No right exists by itself, as if handed to us by nature, not even the right to not be murdered. All rights are based on people deciding some kind of assurances are good to have and putting them into laws and treaties and such. And all rights are only granted and protected based on power relationships and agreement, not based on some (non-existent) natural truths existing independenty of them in the cosmos. We might call some "self-evident" and "natural" but those are just fancy words. In actual history almost all of our so-called "self-evident/natural" rights have been unrecognized (even in quite recent history), and societies considered this just fine. In fact in some cases, actually giving the rights would be considered the violation of the natural law. >of course clever demagogues and rhetoricians can write such things into legislation Demagogue is someone who "who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument". Rhetorician is a public speaker who is good in persuading people with words. Neither have much to do with such legislation being passed (nor was it the work of some demagogues). It's simply about the internet making anything somebody does into a permanent record [1], and this being understood as not always necessarily being for the benefit of society. E.g. what some edgy/troubled teenager wrote on his social media account in his teens shouldn't necessarily be part of his "permanent record" for employers and others to judge them by decades afterwards. And in the past, it wasn't, unless it made the press (and even then, it was easily lost due to it being in print and ephemeral), or was deemed necessary so by the state (e.g. to register as a sex offender). Just because technology now makes it being a permanent record trivial doesn't mean we should be OK with it. We should be masters of technology, not slaves to it. [1] Doesn't matter if something like that could be accomplished in the past too - what matters is that it's far more prevalent, has several orders of magnitude more scale of the kind of stuff that can be kept, and is easier to achieve, and trivial to search with the advent of the internet. This changes the impact of this to society a lot.
- aatd86 3y ago
  European citizen have such right. You can ask for your removal from Google search results for instance.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  You realize that you're just claiming an imaginary “right for business to keep data forever” and ascribe it a higher moral value than the “right to be forgotten” you judge unnatural? Of course Google lobbyists are paid to argue that such a right exist and is higher up in the hierarchy than anything else, but there's no reason to listen to this arguments. I have no love for legislative bodies inventing artificial rights (like intellectual property rights), but corporations inventing artificial right is legitimately even worse. This time fortunately the legislators took the side of the people and created a “right to be forgotten” instead of a “right to hoard private data”.

kragen 3y ago

no such right exists; that would be like the right to rob with impunity of course clever demagogues and rhetoricians can write such things into legislation, just as they can write legislation that claims you have no right to speak freely, but that just makes the legislation incorrect, like the famous legislation declaring pi to be exactly 3

bowsamic 3y ago
I'm confused, on what kind of metaphysical plane do you think rights live if you think they exist independently from the law?
- kragen 3y ago
  — We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip... the US Declaration of Independence, expressing the motivation for independence from Europe) Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, (...) All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Natural law theories base human rights on a "natural" moral, religious or even biological order which is independent of transitory human laws or traditions. Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law, although evidence for this is due largely to the interpretations of his work by Thomas Aquinas. The development of this tradition of natural justice into one of natural law is usually attributed to the Stoics. Some of the early Church fathers sought to incorporate the until then pagan concept of natural law into Christianity. Natural law theories have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, and John Locke. In the Seventeenth Century Thomas Hobbes founded a contractualist theory of legal positivism on what all men could agree upon: what they sought (happiness) was subject to contention, but a broad consensus could form around what they feared (violent death at the hands of another). The natural law was how a rational human being, seeking to survive and prosper, would act. It was discovered by considering humankind's natural rights, whereas previously it could be said that natural rights were discovered by considering the natural law. In Hobbes' opinion, the only way natural law could prevail was for men to submit to the commands of the sovereign. In this lay the foundations of the theory of a social contract between the governed and the governor. Hugo Grotius based his philosophy of international law on natural law. He wrote that "even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate" natural law, which "would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs." (De iure belli ac pacis, Prolegomeni XI). This is the famous argument etiamsi daremus (non-esse Deum), that made natural law no longer dependent on theology. John Locke incorporated natural law into many of his theories and philosophy, especially in Two Treatises of Government. Locke turned Hobbes' prescription around, saying that if the ruler went against natural law and failed to protect "life, liberty, and property," people could justifiably overthrow the existing state and create a new one. The Belgian philosopher of law Frank van Dun is one among those who are elaborating a secular conception of natural law in the liberal tradition. There are also emerging and secular forms of natural law theory that define human rights as derivative of the notion of universal human dignity. The term "human rights" has replaced the term "natural rights" in popularity, because the rights are less and less frequently seen as requiring natural law for their existence. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophies_of_human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophies_of_h... Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights. (...) Natural law first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy, and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was subsequently alluded to in the Bible, and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments. The idea of human rights derives from theories of natural rights. Those rejecting a distinction between human rights and natural rights view human rights as the successor that is not dependent on natural law, natural theology, or Christian theological doctrine. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right... more generally, though, the idea that good and evil can exist independently of law is foundational to most philosophical systems; if you reject that, you necessarily reject that laws can be evil in ways that go beyond mere internal inconsistency though they are not based on conceptions of individual rights, taoism, confucianism, and almost any kind of theism posit a moral authority that is higher than any human law and can therefore condemn it
  - bowsamic 3y ago
    I don't think that secular society posits some kind of natural inalienable objective moral law. I'm sure you know this but many, many people do not believe in objective morality
    - kragen 3y ago
      almost all secular people do in fact believe in objective morality to some degree, though you can occasionally find a pure moral relativist or legalist remember that the holocaust, the great leap forward, gulag, the imprisonment of galileo, daily human sacrifice to the aztec sun god, and witch-burnings in the spanish inquisition were not just legal but legally required therefore, anyone who condemns one of them is appealing to a moral standard they consider superior to, at least, the legal systems of the countries in question at the time
      - bowsamic 3y ago
        I have never met a secular person who appeals to an objective moral standard personally
        kragen 3y ago
        [flagged]
    - abecedarius 3y ago
      The idea of rights can be seen to emerge in large part from multiagent decision theory. This should not be surprising because moral intuitions arose as humans evolved living in groups. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.htm...
      - kragen 3y ago
        this is a very interesting article; thank you
      - 3y ago
0ct4via 3y ago
"no such right exists" - the law would disagree with you on that one. "Under Article 17 of the UK GDPR individuals have the right to have personal data erased. This is also known as the 'right to be forgotten'." [1] "The right to be forgotten appears in Recitals 65 and 66 and in Article 17 of the GDPR. It states, “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”" [2] [1] https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/individual-rights/right-to-erasure/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re... [2] https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224 https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten This obviously varies depending on jurisdictions, but a great number of users (EU citizens, and people resident in the EU - but additionally, the UK) absolutely have a "right to be forgotten," and brazenly claiming "no such right exists" is ignorant and fallacious, and such unfounded arrogance is a distinctly USian trait. For someone who purportedly lives outside the US, you don't seem to grasp that there are laws in other countries than the US.
- kragen 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - 0ct4via 3y ago
    You'd do well to read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html -- all that baseless assumption and disingenuous false accusation really isn't in any way civil or useful... but then when you're cheap enough to bring the Holocaust into a discussion about data protection legislation, you're really not in a position on ethics - or indeed anything else.
    - kitanata 3y ago
      [flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dontupvoteme 3y ago
digital computing machines did not exist when philosophers and thinkers were busy coming up with and refining the concepts of rights between antiquity and relatively recent human history. If you were familiar with the fallibility of human memory you wouldn't have made such a post some of us practice sufficiently OK OPSEC to prevent this from becoming an issue but it doesn't mean that we don't have to look out for the greater good of society against unwarranted centralization of technological power. feel free to breach such legislation if you deem it in your best interests
coldtea 3y ago
>no such right exists; that would be like the right to rob with impunity No, it's the same kind of thing as having your records "sealed", to not let a past deed haunt you. Not even sure what kind of logic jumps one has to make to equate something like this to "robbing with inpunity". For starters the punishment to robbing isn't remembrance of your robbing, it's jail time or fine etc. And, fun fact, the aforementioned "records being sealed" can even be applied to someone who e.g. did a robbery or other crime as a juvenile. Now, since a "right to be forgotten" does explicitly exist in EU and other jurisdictions, I'm not sure what denying its existance means. If you mean "there's no such right" as a thing in itself, outside laws and treaties and jurisdictions, then the same is true for any right. No right exists by itself, as if handed to us by nature, not even the right to not be murdered. All rights are based on people deciding some kind of assurances are good to have and putting them into laws and treaties and such. And all rights are only granted and protected based on power relationships and agreement, not based on some (non-existent) natural truths existing independenty of them in the cosmos. We might call some "self-evident" and "natural" but those are just fancy words. In actual history almost all of our so-called "self-evident/natural" rights have been unrecognized (even in quite recent history), and societies considered this just fine. In fact in some cases, actually giving the rights would be considered the violation of the natural law. >of course clever demagogues and rhetoricians can write such things into legislation Demagogue is someone who "who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument". Rhetorician is a public speaker who is good in persuading people with words. Neither have much to do with such legislation being passed (nor was it the work of some demagogues). It's simply about the internet making anything somebody does into a permanent record [1], and this being understood as not always necessarily being for the benefit of society. E.g. what some edgy/troubled teenager wrote on his social media account in his teens shouldn't necessarily be part of his "permanent record" for employers and others to judge them by decades afterwards. And in the past, it wasn't, unless it made the press (and even then, it was easily lost due to it being in print and ephemeral), or was deemed necessary so by the state (e.g. to register as a sex offender). Just because technology now makes it being a permanent record trivial doesn't mean we should be OK with it. We should be masters of technology, not slaves to it. [1] Doesn't matter if something like that could be accomplished in the past too - what matters is that it's far more prevalent, has several orders of magnitude more scale of the kind of stuff that can be kept, and is easier to achieve, and trivial to search with the advent of the internet. This changes the impact of this to society a lot.
aatd86 3y ago
European citizen have such right. You can ask for your removal from Google search results for instance.
littlestymaar 3y ago
You realize that you're just claiming an imaginary “right for business to keep data forever” and ascribe it a higher moral value than the “right to be forgotten” you judge unnatural? Of course Google lobbyists are paid to argue that such a right exist and is higher up in the hierarchy than anything else, but there's no reason to listen to this arguments. I have no love for legislative bodies inventing artificial rights (like intellectual property rights), but corporations inventing artificial right is legitimately even worse. This time fortunately the legislators took the side of the people and created a “right to be forgotten” instead of a “right to hoard private data”.