6 ms·

One quite an important fact is forgotten there, that publishing information is basically irreversible action. Even if google removed the information from their

One quite an important fact is forgotten there, that publishing information is basically irreversible action. Even if google removed the information from their search engines, other search engines probably won't. And of course decentralized solutions to search engines are coming also, where information can't be removed even theoretically (for example, yacy.de)

higherpurpose 12y ago
I think what's more important here is that I'd have to right to ask the company to delete my info, even if it doesn't completely disappear from the web. If I ask Facebook to delete my account, then it better delete everything it has ever collected about me, no questions asked. Facebook may or may not do that right now (who really knows, when they change their privacy policy several times a year), and if it does it, it's mainly because of some recent lawsuits in Europe. It used to be very reluctant to do so. Some companies, and I think Facebook, too, argue that once you gave them your data then it's "theirs". That's not right, and they shouldn't be allowed to act like that.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  These are two different issues. Yes, Facebook should delete your info when you request them to. However, I find it more than a bit disturbing that someone can use the courts to force entities to pull public information that is less than flattering about them. Would you hold this decision in the same regard if it were about a CEO that was trying to bury that he was sued in the past?
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    You are confusing two separate issues. Social Networks and Search Engines are not sources of administrative data. A CEO cannot bury that he was sued as the matter is a public record. Should he be able to have that information removed from search engines who provide no context and social media accounts he owned? Absolutely.
    - Sanddancer 12y ago
      The biggest issue I have here is one of fundamental honesty and equality in the legal system. By creating a system where someone with enough money and lawyers can make their past problems disappear, you only serve to make the legal playing field more unequal than it already is. Additionally, it starts creating much bigger questions as to where the line should be drawn. Should legal search services like LexisNexis also be bound by decisions like this? Should case records only be available to those that can afford to go to the courthouse on alternate Tuesdays between the hours of 9 and 10? In the end, this case only harms the law. The big still have access to the same data they always did, the small people are shut out again.
      - mattmanser 12y ago
        No, the biggest obsession you seem to have from your multiple comments in this thread is some sort of belief in absolute justice. Without the ability to forget our past mistakes, we are forever defined by them. You seem to be begging for that to happen. You want to destroy someone's life forever. Everyone needs a chance to rehabilitate, whether or not they were guilty or successfully prosecuted or not. Does it matter that this man wants to forget whatever shame this caused him? I actually find it disgraceful that you have deliberately used his name in two of your comments. At the time of writing almost 10% of comments in this thread are from you. What has happened to you to make you so broken and incapable of forgiveness?
        Sanddancer 12y ago
        My problem is that he's kicking and screaming in the courts, trying to make the fact that he had a tax dispute go away. Had he said nothing, I doubt anyone, even in his hometown would have cared all that much about the issue. Instead, he's chosen to bully people into removing facts about him because they're no longer convenient to him. Everyone makes mistakes, lord knows I have, but part of learning from them, and rehabilitation, is admitting that mistakes do happen, which this man seems incapable of. I use his name because I'm tired of seeing well-heeled individuals throw their weight around in the court system. I use his name because he wishes to subvert public discourse. I use his name because he has chosen to make himself a public figure with his suit. Why should I respect someone who has chosen to disrespect the concepts of free speech, of open government, and of a fair society?
qwerta 12y ago
Do not over-complicate it. Most cases are about deleting top-search results from Google. And most sites already have DMCA on place.
- dublinben 12y ago
  You can't use a DMCA takedown request for factual information, only something you can claim copyright on.
- ars 12y ago
  It would only delete from google.eu (or the various .eu suffixes). It would not be deleted from google.com So if you are in the EU and want unfiltered information just go to google.com.

higherpurpose 12y ago

I think what's more important here is that I'd have to right to ask the company to delete my info, even if it doesn't completely disappear from the web. If I ask Facebook to delete my account, then it better delete everything it has ever collected about me, no questions asked. Facebook may or may not do that right now (who really knows, when they change their privacy policy several times a year), and if it does it, it's mainly because of some recent lawsuits in Europe. It used to be very reluctant to do so. Some companies, and I think Facebook, too, argue that once you gave them your data then it's "theirs". That's not right, and they shouldn't be allowed to act like that.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Sanddancer 12y ago
These are two different issues. Yes, Facebook should delete your info when you request them to. However, I find it more than a bit disturbing that someone can use the courts to force entities to pull public information that is less than flattering about them. Would you hold this decision in the same regard if it were about a CEO that was trying to bury that he was sued in the past?
- ZenPro 12y ago
  You are confusing two separate issues. Social Networks and Search Engines are not sources of administrative data. A CEO cannot bury that he was sued as the matter is a public record. Should he be able to have that information removed from search engines who provide no context and social media accounts he owned? Absolutely.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    The biggest issue I have here is one of fundamental honesty and equality in the legal system. By creating a system where someone with enough money and lawyers can make their past problems disappear, you only serve to make the legal playing field more unequal than it already is. Additionally, it starts creating much bigger questions as to where the line should be drawn. Should legal search services like LexisNexis also be bound by decisions like this? Should case records only be available to those that can afford to go to the courthouse on alternate Tuesdays between the hours of 9 and 10? In the end, this case only harms the law. The big still have access to the same data they always did, the small people are shut out again.
    - mattmanser 12y ago
      No, the biggest obsession you seem to have from your multiple comments in this thread is some sort of belief in absolute justice. Without the ability to forget our past mistakes, we are forever defined by them. You seem to be begging for that to happen. You want to destroy someone's life forever. Everyone needs a chance to rehabilitate, whether or not they were guilty or successfully prosecuted or not. Does it matter that this man wants to forget whatever shame this caused him? I actually find it disgraceful that you have deliberately used his name in two of your comments. At the time of writing almost 10% of comments in this thread are from you. What has happened to you to make you so broken and incapable of forgiveness?
      - Sanddancer 12y ago
        My problem is that he's kicking and screaming in the courts, trying to make the fact that he had a tax dispute go away. Had he said nothing, I doubt anyone, even in his hometown would have cared all that much about the issue. Instead, he's chosen to bully people into removing facts about him because they're no longer convenient to him. Everyone makes mistakes, lord knows I have, but part of learning from them, and rehabilitation, is admitting that mistakes do happen, which this man seems incapable of. I use his name because I'm tired of seeing well-heeled individuals throw their weight around in the court system. I use his name because he wishes to subvert public discourse. I use his name because he has chosen to make himself a public figure with his suit. Why should I respect someone who has chosen to disrespect the concepts of free speech, of open government, and of a fair society?

qwerta 12y ago

Do not over-complicate it. Most cases are about deleting top-search results from Google. And most sites already have DMCA on place.

dublinben 12y ago
You can't use a DMCA takedown request for factual information, only something you can claim copyright on.
ars 12y ago
It would only delete from google.eu (or the various .eu suffixes). It would not be deleted from google.com So if you are in the EU and want unfiltered information just go to google.com.