3 ms·
The fact that that exercise of the "right to be forgotten" won't completely protect you from facts about the past is a red herring. Security is almost never per
by chc 12y ago
The fact that that exercise of the "right to be forgotten" won't completely protect you from facts about the past is a red herring. Security is almost never perfect. Security is mostly about making something generally impractical to do. This is similar — a dedicated snoop will probably be able to find the dirt, but it won't be readily apparent to everyone who types your name into the world's most typed-into box.
- sailfast 12y agoTotally understand and security by obscurity is definitely possible and effective, though difficult for media and the internet. That said, if something is legitimately public, why would we not want to make it easily accessible "using the world's most typed-into box"? Why would we prevent someone from developing an effective way to make that data available to the public? What differentiates something with your name on it from all other data? (I'm not talking about private data here that you entered or were promised would be shared in a private context from, say, a profile or payment information standpoint) This new "right" seems completely random and out of left field. It doesn't really have anything to do with privacy. I don't agree that it is a right because to me, rights make sense across the board. This one only kind of makes sense in a narrow context and when applied broadly doesn't work at all, and infringes on all the others.
- benologist 12y agoIt's a massive privacy issue - you can change in very personal, significant ways without Google etc updating the person they present you as being - your political beliefs, your gender and sexuality, controversial opinions etc. There are many contexts where these and outdated versions of you shouldn't be the most-available, most-presented information about you.