6 ms·

It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable, yet when something like this happens it's great that no one can cover up their tracks. Now th

It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable, yet when something like this happens it's great that no one can cover up their tracks. Now the pro-Russian separists are trying to delete all sorts of info. We have this tweet about them getting a bunch of anti-aircraft missiles (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NF6E5FCKFNEJ:https://twitter.com/dnrpress/status/483248037629018112 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NF6E5FC...), showing off their new toys (https://twitter.com/grasswire/status/489823087190224897/photo/1 https://twitter.com/grasswire/status/489823087190224897/phot...) and the most important one of the day of the rebel leader (or whoever manages his Vkontakte account) bragging about downing planes before he knew that one was civilian (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fvk.com%2Fwall-57424472_7256 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...). The http://grasswire.com http://grasswire.com users keep finding more and more of these - It seems desirable that we can delete stuff online and have it go away, but sometimes the Streisand effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) is a great thing.

gwern 12y ago
> It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable, yet when something like this happens it's great that no one can cover up their tracks. Now the pro-Russian separists are trying to delete all sorts of info. Are war crimes what 'right to be forgotten' is all about?
- badkungfu 12y ago
  > Are war crimes what 'right to be forgotten' is all about? Of course not. I think OP is just pointing out that there are pros and cons. OTOH, if I were leading a technologically sophisticated country to war and had the ability, I might look for ways to make my opponent look bad- say, by posting to internet forums using their hacked accounts- and trust that the internet would not forget.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    And how exactly would you get the video of the plane being shot down? The stupidity of the rebels is explanation enough.
    - badkungfu 12y ago
      I'm certainly not saying this was a fake post. Though it's possible, I guess. I'm just saying that the internet is a tool of war. And for those purposes, it's helpful that information can become rapidly-propagated Truth.
- bertil 12y ago
  Most (adversited) decisions are about elected officials and executives failing their duties. There is a difference between dodging taxes and slaughtering civilians, but the idea (jail sentences for people with political power) is close enough for lawyers to see the need for clarification.
- chc 12y ago
  The "right to be forgotten" laws aren't really "all about" any particular subject matter as far as I can tell. They seem to be potentially (though not definitely) applicable to nearly any story about a person that might be considered "old news."
- trhway 12y ago
  However horrific the civilian plane's shooting down is, i don't think accidental shoot down would qualify as a war crime. If anything, the celebratory message about supposed successful shooting down of one more military cargo plane confirms that the rebels, it it were rebels' missile, were intending to shoot at an enemy military target . Wrt. the right [more precisely lack of it] to be forgotten and war crimes : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Non-Applicability_of_Statutory_Limitations_to_War_Crimes_and_Crimes_Against_Humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Non-Applicabi...
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    "wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or any object not warranted by military necessity" is a war crime. A plane would be such an object. "murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps" is a war crime. Passengers of an aircraft traversing an occupied territory could be construed as civilian residents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war..." is a crime against humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity
r00fus 12y ago
What does "right-to-forget" have anything to do with the separatist pulling info from (supposedly) his own website? I don't see Google or any other search engine involved in this situation at all. Stop conflating things - that someone can post content and remove it of their own volition while Wayback Machine captures it is not germane to the discussion of whether it's ok to be forgotten. Now if the separatist had issued a removal request to WM, that'd be a different story.
- VMG 12y ago
  The law is not restricted to search engines: > The EU defines ‘data controllers’ as ‘people or bodies that collect and manage personal data.’ (WP)
- warfangle 12y ago
  It's not his own website. It's VKontakte, a rather large eastern european social network.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    So how did this individual remove the info? Was a right-to-be-forgotten clause get invoked? Or did he just exercise existing privileges to delete his info?
    - warfangle 12y ago
      He just deleted the post.
shmerl 12y ago
Who said there is a right to be forgotten?
- pdabbadabba 12y ago
  The EU: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...
  - _delirium 12y ago
    It would be worth actually reading that PDF to see what it defines the right as including and not including.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Agreed! I don't mean to say that it applies to this situation (or that it was a good idea to recognize this right in the first place). I simply answered the question "who says there is a right to be forgotten?" Maybe shmerl did not mean the question literally, but I can't really tell.
    - chc 12y ago
      It doesn't do any such thing as far as I can tell. The limitations are as clear as mud. It seem to be best summed up as "Any data about any identifiable person that is felt to be 'no longer necessary.'"
  - shmerl 12y ago
    I meant it in a way, does it make sense really? I think not. At least not in the way EU did it.
pyre 12y ago
I don't think that anyone is advocating the 'right to be forgotten' as a way of wiping all content you don't like about yourself from the Internet, or even that it extends to content less than a day old. It has more to do with companies keeping their records on you from now until they go bankrupt (and then sell that data off as an asset to appease their creditors).
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  The rest of the world will see the actual search results, only Europeans will be left in the dark.
  - Zuider 12y ago
    Unless they Google via a proxy. People are already doing this to gain access to locale restricted content, notably on Youtube. In fact, there are browser based plug-ins to automate this. There is no 'right to be forgotten', really. It just means that, legally, a potential employer who digs up a youthful indiscretion, or a journalist digging for dirt cannot be up front about what they have found. You will not be able to know or challenge the reasons you have been discriminated against. This will be particularly harmful in cases where the damage to your good name is demonstrably false because you will not be able to confront and disprove it.
fleitz 12y ago
It's easy to cover your tracks, don't post shoot down videos on Facebook, or supply and weapon inventories. I don't know how this could even be considered 'tracks', it's strategic information that should never have been posted in the first place. (Assuming the rebels are running a military operation in hopes of gaining control of territory) Also, if the information wasn't suppressed it would still be just as popular. Do you really think no one was going to check the Rebel Leaders VK? The event was already international news, and would fill headlines for the next week, there is no way that suppressing the information made it more widely known.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  It is pretty clear if you listen to nterviews, that the pro-russian rebels are mostly morons. With friends like that who needs enemies.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Yeah, no kidding they should be on America's Dumbest Criminals.
    - adobriyan 12y ago
      If you'd follow the story from the very beginning, you'd understand why those "we have Buk" posts were made.
      - kjs3 12y ago
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2014/05/06/russias-media-trolls/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2014/05/06/russias-m...
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Well, Russia's dumbest. Putin's stooges really fucked up on this one.
dredmorbius 12y ago
It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable Sorry, but this is a complete mischaracterization of the right. I've been having the same conversation with Yonatan Zunger on G+, he tried cracking a similar joke there. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/856eZ9hWtm3 https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/856eZ9hWtm3 It's a flagrantly specious argument. Compelling public right to know in an international incident, attack on the public, by armed militants operating in defiance of local and international law. That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request. Now, ask me about the identities of individuals whose passports are shown on a video linked here, and I might be open to debate (though this raises the question of whether or not RTBF is ceded on death). If you're interested in an informed discussion of RTBF, I'd strongly recommend Max Huijgen's threads on G+: "Google's Cynical Manipulation of the Right To Be Forgotten" https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/dLnAX2j3Y2Z https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/dLnAX2j3Y2Z "What should fall under the European right to be forgotten and to reverse it: what should fall under the 'right to know'?" https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/Jsw9W8xESK9 https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/Jsw9W8xESK9 And one more from Yonatan Zunger: "The Right To Be Forgotten: A Question" https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/YkCCgK4odo6 https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/YkCCgK4odo6
- kghose 12y ago
  Who decides?
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    Here you go: Factsheet on the "Right to be Forgotten" ruling (C-131/12) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...
- awalton 12y ago
  > That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request. That passes your definition of reasonable grounds. The problem is that there doesn't exist an established "reasonable grounds" in this area, period. There is no legal test as to what is "reasonable." It's left up to the likes of Google to decide what records society keeps on who. And that's absolutely flabberghasting. Within a month of this "right" being instated, evil people were already using it to cover their tracks, and that's a Fact that cannot be ignored.
szierk 12y ago
It's apples and oranges. The right to be forgotten usually doesn't refer to things adults unanonymously post to social networking sites and similar forums.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  There's an explicit exception for a compelling public interest in the information as well.

gwern 12y ago

> It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable, yet when something like this happens it's great that no one can cover up their tracks. Now the pro-Russian separists are trying to delete all sorts of info. Are war crimes what 'right to be forgotten' is all about?

badkungfu 12y ago
> Are war crimes what 'right to be forgotten' is all about? Of course not. I think OP is just pointing out that there are pros and cons. OTOH, if I were leading a technologically sophisticated country to war and had the ability, I might look for ways to make my opponent look bad- say, by posting to internet forums using their hacked accounts- and trust that the internet would not forget.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  And how exactly would you get the video of the plane being shot down? The stupidity of the rebels is explanation enough.
  - badkungfu 12y ago
    I'm certainly not saying this was a fake post. Though it's possible, I guess. I'm just saying that the internet is a tool of war. And for those purposes, it's helpful that information can become rapidly-propagated Truth.
bertil 12y ago
Most (adversited) decisions are about elected officials and executives failing their duties. There is a difference between dodging taxes and slaughtering civilians, but the idea (jail sentences for people with political power) is close enough for lawyers to see the need for clarification.
chc 12y ago
The "right to be forgotten" laws aren't really "all about" any particular subject matter as far as I can tell. They seem to be potentially (though not definitely) applicable to nearly any story about a person that might be considered "old news."
trhway 12y ago
However horrific the civilian plane's shooting down is, i don't think accidental shoot down would qualify as a war crime. If anything, the celebratory message about supposed successful shooting down of one more military cargo plane confirms that the rebels, it it were rebels' missile, were intending to shoot at an enemy military target . Wrt. the right [more precisely lack of it] to be forgotten and war crimes : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Non-Applicability_of_Statutory_Limitations_to_War_Crimes_and_Crimes_Against_Humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Non-Applicabi...
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  "wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or any object not warranted by military necessity" is a war crime. A plane would be such an object. "murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps" is a war crime. Passengers of an aircraft traversing an occupied territory could be construed as civilian residents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war..." is a crime against humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

r00fus 12y ago

What does "right-to-forget" have anything to do with the separatist pulling info from (supposedly) his own website? I don't see Google or any other search engine involved in this situation at all. Stop conflating things - that someone can post content and remove it of their own volition while Wayback Machine captures it is not germane to the discussion of whether it's ok to be forgotten. Now if the separatist had issued a removal request to WM, that'd be a different story.

VMG 12y ago
The law is not restricted to search engines: > The EU defines ‘data controllers’ as ‘people or bodies that collect and manage personal data.’ (WP)
warfangle 12y ago
It's not his own website. It's VKontakte, a rather large eastern european social network.
- r00fus 12y ago
  So how did this individual remove the info? Was a right-to-be-forgotten clause get invoked? Or did he just exercise existing privileges to delete his info?
  - warfangle 12y ago
    He just deleted the post.

shmerl 12y ago

Who said there is a right to be forgotten?

pdabbadabba 12y ago
The EU: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...
- _delirium 12y ago
  It would be worth actually reading that PDF to see what it defines the right as including and not including.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Agreed! I don't mean to say that it applies to this situation (or that it was a good idea to recognize this right in the first place). I simply answered the question "who says there is a right to be forgotten?" Maybe shmerl did not mean the question literally, but I can't really tell.
  - chc 12y ago
    It doesn't do any such thing as far as I can tell. The limitations are as clear as mud. It seem to be best summed up as "Any data about any identifiable person that is felt to be 'no longer necessary.'"
- shmerl 12y ago
  I meant it in a way, does it make sense really? I think not. At least not in the way EU did it.

pyre 12y ago

I don't think that anyone is advocating the 'right to be forgotten' as a way of wiping all content you don't like about yourself from the Internet, or even that it extends to content less than a day old. It has more to do with companies keeping their records on you from now until they go bankrupt (and then sell that data off as an asset to appease their creditors).

happyscrappy 12y ago
The rest of the world will see the actual search results, only Europeans will be left in the dark.
- Zuider 12y ago
  Unless they Google via a proxy. People are already doing this to gain access to locale restricted content, notably on Youtube. In fact, there are browser based plug-ins to automate this. There is no 'right to be forgotten', really. It just means that, legally, a potential employer who digs up a youthful indiscretion, or a journalist digging for dirt cannot be up front about what they have found. You will not be able to know or challenge the reasons you have been discriminated against. This will be particularly harmful in cases where the damage to your good name is demonstrably false because you will not be able to confront and disprove it.

fleitz 12y ago

It's easy to cover your tracks, don't post shoot down videos on Facebook, or supply and weapon inventories. I don't know how this could even be considered 'tracks', it's strategic information that should never have been posted in the first place. (Assuming the rebels are running a military operation in hopes of gaining control of territory) Also, if the information wasn't suppressed it would still be just as popular. Do you really think no one was going to check the Rebel Leaders VK? The event was already international news, and would fill headlines for the next week, there is no way that suppressing the information made it more widely known.

happyscrappy 12y ago
It is pretty clear if you listen to nterviews, that the pro-russian rebels are mostly morons. With friends like that who needs enemies.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Yeah, no kidding they should be on America's Dumbest Criminals.
  - adobriyan 12y ago
    If you'd follow the story from the very beginning, you'd understand why those "we have Buk" posts were made.
    - kjs3 12y ago
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2014/05/06/russias-media-trolls/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2014/05/06/russias-m...
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Well, Russia's dumbest. Putin's stooges really fucked up on this one.

dredmorbius 12y ago

It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable Sorry, but this is a complete mischaracterization of the right. I've been having the same conversation with Yonatan Zunger on G+, he tried cracking a similar joke there. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/856eZ9hWtm3 https://plus.google.com/u/0/+YonatanZunger/posts/856eZ9hWtm3 It's a flagrantly specious argument. Compelling public right to know in an international incident, attack on the public, by armed militants operating in defiance of local and international law. That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request. Now, ask me about the identities of individuals whose passports are shown on a video linked here, and I might be open to debate (though this raises the question of whether or not RTBF is ceded on death). If you're interested in an informed discussion of RTBF, I'd strongly recommend Max Huijgen's threads on G+: "Google's Cynical Manipulation of the Right To Be Forgotten" https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/dLnAX2j3Y2Z https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/dLnAX2j3Y2Z "What should fall under the European right to be forgotten and to reverse it: what should fall under the 'right to know'?" https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/Jsw9W8xESK9 https://plus.google.com/+MaxHuijgen/posts/Jsw9W8xESK9 And one more from Yonatan Zunger: "The Right To Be Forgotten: A Question" https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/YkCCgK4odo6 https://plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/YkCCgK4odo6

kghose 12y ago
Who decides?
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Here you go: Factsheet on the "Right to be Forgotten" ruling (C-131/12) http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets...
awalton 12y ago
> That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request. That passes your definition of reasonable grounds. The problem is that there doesn't exist an established "reasonable grounds" in this area, period. There is no legal test as to what is "reasonable." It's left up to the likes of Google to decide what records society keeps on who. And that's absolutely flabberghasting. Within a month of this "right" being instated, evil people were already using it to cover their tracks, and that's a Fact that cannot be ignored.

szierk 12y ago

It's apples and oranges. The right to be forgotten usually doesn't refer to things adults unanonymously post to social networking sites and similar forums.

dredmorbius 12y ago
There's an explicit exception for a compelling public interest in the information as well.