5 ms·

As a free service, I wonder if the burden of complying with a right to be forgotten would be too much to sustain.

_bin_ 2y ago
Almost certainly. Presumably why it’s not available to euros. Also would be a very strange to apply this so-called “right” when court records are essential to keeping organs of government accountable.
- carstenhag 2y ago
  Relatively sure this would be fine in some European countries. In Germany, afaik it's an ongoing question on whether there's a copyright on the records (especially from the lawyer texts). The names and so on are always censored anyhow, in some cases it's a bit obvious who did things though. If it's a lawsuit about a company and let's say it sells books online, maybe you can tell by 1-2 things what company it is. But for people, it's not so straight forward.
  - miki123211 2y ago
    > The names and so on are always censored anyhow This is actually starting to become a problem because computers are getting too good at their job. Let's say a news site reports on a criminal trial of a John Smith, censored as John S. If John Smith was in any way famous before the trial and had an article written about him, that article is somewhat likely to appear in the "you may also like" sidebar when you're reading the censored one. Some news sites try to suppress this, but I'm not sure they're legally required to do so.
- victorbjorklund 2y ago
  im im EU and it is noy blocked here
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    Right but it only covers American courts.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    Right but it only covers American courts. I presume since it’s free and is likely domiciled/hosted in America, the owner could probably just scrape euro records and tell the EU “lol get bent” if they made a stink, but probably doesn’t want to run the risk.
joekim 2y ago
I would think so if the right to be forgotten was legal principle in the United States. It only applies in Europe and I don’t think it applies to court records that are public.
- miki123211 2y ago
  In Europe, court records aren't public in the same way as they are in the US. They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused. Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this. Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    >or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job In the Netherlands it's not even that -- you can ask for a certificate of "good behavior" with a purpose and they just say yes or no. If the purpose is employment, the form asks which sector you will be employed in, because sex offenders can still work somewhere and so do people convicted of financial fraud. You just don't want them to work in specific places, i.e. near kids or banks respectively. Data minimization is a thing.
  - NoTeslaThrow 2y ago
    > Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.
    - Muromec 2y ago
      Police maintains the database, so of course they can run a background check. But they don't offer it as a service and don't give away the information to anyone except the person it concerns.
kragen 2y ago
Under US law, there is no such thing as a right to be forgotten, because it would infringe on the public's right to remember. This is considered especially important when what is being remembered is a lawsuit, where transparency is essential to protecting the public interest.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  cases are generally expunged after X number of years (X varies state to state but there is always an X).
  - kragen 2y ago
    Generally not automatically, and not for civil lawsuits or for all crimes, and in the US expungement from court records does not obligate any third party to falsify newspaper archives, etc.: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-comparisonjudicial-expungement-sealing-and-set-aside-2-2/ https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-s... A recent law review article on the prospects of this so-called "right" under US law is https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont-make-it-to-the-united-states/ https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont..., citing https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ ("It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminalize releasing the name of a rape victim or to permit a private right of action against the press for doing so."), and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-57302/12-57302-2014-02-26.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12.... See also https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-3315/13-3315-2015-01-28.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13....
- NoTeslaThrow 2y ago
  > because it would infringe on the public's right to remember ? What are you referring to? I've never heard of such a concept.
  - kragen 2y ago

Almost certainly. Presumably why it’s not available to euros. Also would be a very strange to apply this so-called “right” when court records are essential to keeping organs of government accountable.

carstenhag 2y ago
Relatively sure this would be fine in some European countries. In Germany, afaik it's an ongoing question on whether there's a copyright on the records (especially from the lawyer texts). The names and so on are always censored anyhow, in some cases it's a bit obvious who did things though. If it's a lawsuit about a company and let's say it sells books online, maybe you can tell by 1-2 things what company it is. But for people, it's not so straight forward.
- miki123211 2y ago
  > The names and so on are always censored anyhow This is actually starting to become a problem because computers are getting too good at their job. Let's say a news site reports on a criminal trial of a John Smith, censored as John S. If John Smith was in any way famous before the trial and had an article written about him, that article is somewhat likely to appear in the "you may also like" sidebar when you're reading the censored one. Some news sites try to suppress this, but I'm not sure they're legally required to do so.
victorbjorklund 2y ago
im im EU and it is noy blocked here
- _bin_ 2y ago
  Right but it only covers American courts.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  Right but it only covers American courts. I presume since it’s free and is likely domiciled/hosted in America, the owner could probably just scrape euro records and tell the EU “lol get bent” if they made a stink, but probably doesn’t want to run the risk.

joekim 2y ago

I would think so if the right to be forgotten was legal principle in the United States. It only applies in Europe and I don’t think it applies to court records that are public.

miki123211 2y ago
In Europe, court records aren't public in the same way as they are in the US. They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused. Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this. Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.
- Muromec 2y ago
  >or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job In the Netherlands it's not even that -- you can ask for a certificate of "good behavior" with a purpose and they just say yes or no. If the purpose is employment, the form asks which sector you will be employed in, because sex offenders can still work somewhere and so do people convicted of financial fraud. You just don't want them to work in specific places, i.e. near kids or banks respectively. Data minimization is a thing.
- NoTeslaThrow 2y ago
  > Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.
  - Muromec 2y ago
    Police maintains the database, so of course they can run a background check. But they don't offer it as a service and don't give away the information to anyone except the person it concerns.

kragen 2y ago

Under US law, there is no such thing as a right to be forgotten, because it would infringe on the public's right to remember. This is considered especially important when what is being remembered is a lawsuit, where transparency is essential to protecting the public interest.

bdangubic 2y ago
cases are generally expunged after X number of years (X varies state to state but there is always an X).
- kragen 2y ago
  Generally not automatically, and not for civil lawsuits or for all crimes, and in the US expungement from court records does not obligate any third party to falsify newspaper archives, etc.: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-comparisonjudicial-expungement-sealing-and-set-aside-2-2/ https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-s... A recent law review article on the prospects of this so-called "right" under US law is https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont-make-it-to-the-united-states/ https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont..., citing https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ ("It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminalize releasing the name of a rape victim or to permit a private right of action against the press for doing so."), and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12-57302/12-57302-2014-02-26.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12.... See also https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13-3315/13-3315-2015-01-28.html https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13....
NoTeslaThrow 2y ago
> because it would infringe on the public's right to remember ? What are you referring to? I've never heard of such a concept.
- kragen 2y ago