6 ms·
Perhaps it's worth noting the following in the article (before rushing to comment here based on the title alone): "The case began with a complaint to the feder
by herodoturtle 3y ago
Perhaps it's worth noting the following in the article (before rushing to comment here based on the title alone):
"The case began with a complaint to the federal Privacy Commissioner in 2017 from a man whose name and details are kept confidential in the ruling. The man said outdated and inaccurate information about him in newspaper articles found on the internet was leading to great personal harm, including physical assault, employment discrimination, severe social stigma and persistent fear. He wanted the information to be delisted – made unsearchable, unless someone knew the website urls featuring his name."
- spookie 3y agoQuite understandable.
- eli 3y agoIt really depends. Some people would consider it “outdated and inaccurate” to report they were arrested for some crime - even if that’s true. Should such articles be scrubbed from Google if they are causing harm? Removed from newspaper archives too?
- bashinator 3y agoThat would bring us back to parity with pre-Internet society, assuming said info could still be accessed through court and library archives.
- graypegg 3y agoIn my own opinion, if you’re arrested, have paid the standard debt to society that we all (in theory) have agreed on, and gone back into society seeking a job… forcing people to constantly deal with their old (non violent) crimes seems like extra-judicial punishment for very little benefit. Even worse to leave that punishment to a private company.
- eli 3y agoHmm so is that just crimes or anyone can get anything bad they’ve done removed from the internet?
- graypegg 3y agoGP comment was about specifically information about crimes. Not sure what precedence is set by the decision mentioned in the article.
- eli 3y agoJust seems awfully hard to draw a line. So if the victim of the crime published an essay about what happened, are they allowed to tell their own story and have it listed in Google? What if it’s a story about conduct that could be criminal but for which you were never charged?
- twoodfin 3y agoFortunately, in the US it’s fairly easy to draw a line: There’s no First Amendment exception for “I’d rather you didn’t remind people of that.”
- eli 3y agoI wouldn’t be so certain of how the first amendment applies to tech platforms (esp as interpreted by current SCOTUS) This case could go either way https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/scotus-to-review-florida-and-texas-social-media-laws-in-big-tech-vs-gop-battle/amp/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/scotus-to-review...
- wahnfrieden 3y agoYou would've had Epstein's history erased after his first stint in jail
- Teever 3y ago
- ben_w 3y agoEven if the reason you're being physically assaulted is for a crime you did do, yes, information about this shouldn't still be easy to reach on the internet by your release from prison. Adding mob justice to the formal legal system doesn't make it better. > Removed from newspaper archives too? No, but most people don't look in the archives so that doesn't matter.
- eli 3y agoHow would you craft a law that applies to some search engines but not others? Market share?
- ben_w 3y agoI assume from the question that you think I think newspapers archives means online archives. I don't, they can be offline, just as they were prior to the internet. If you meant anything else: I wouldn't distinguish between any search engines, large or small… but I'm also not a lawyer or a lawmaker, so I have a paper-thin awareness of the consequences of my suggestion that even ChatGPT can probably poke holes in if only it weren't so sycophantic.
- theironhammer 3y agoArrested or convicted? Though to be arrested in many eyes means guilty.
- theptip 3y agoRather than speculate or reinvent from first principles, we could look at existing “right to be forgotten” laws like GDPR: https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ Not sure what the Canadian basis is, but in general these laws recognize that it’s a tradeoff where the public has some interest in most information, and the individual may have an interest in it being forgotten. Criminal records would be a clear grey area where one could make the case for a public interest particularly in the short term, which is less strong over time. But inaccurate reporting is clearly much less eligible for the public interest. I think phrasing it as a right is perhaps sets the wrong framing, as it’s quite conditional. (Certainly seems to trigger many Americans.)
- bonoboTP 3y agoThis is why in most of Europe, full names are not printed in the press, the last name is abbreviated, and photos are blurred.
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoUntil conviction.
- backtoyoujim 3y agoInstead of "some people" why not offer a real world example of this assertion.
- eli 3y agoI’m so sure because I’ve worked for news websites and personally had this happen. I’d rather not antagonize them by linking the article. But in some cases we’ve added editor's notes or addendums to provide additional context or updates. We always correct factual errors. But I don’t think we’ve ever taken an article down because someone didn’t like it. Sorry you’ll have to take my word for it. It’s common enough though. Here’s an old pointer article https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/5-ways-news-organizations-respond-to-unpublishing-requests/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/5-ways-news-o... and there are tons of companies offering to help you get articles removed from Google.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lo_zamoyski 3y agoWhile targeting search may be more expedient, I would expect the proper target to be the publisher or maintainer of the inaccurate newspaper articles. If articles make false claims, that can fall under defamation. A reasonable newspaper will include corrections (preferably inline).