What's going through the EU's mind right now? "This is clearly futile, not working and doesn't stand a chance in hell of working......so let's do more!"?
I mean, seriously, what will they be doing next? Asking all proxies, VPNs, and TOR to filter "right to be forgotten" search results. All airlines and airports offering international flights will require memory wipers to remove any "right to be forgotten knowledge" from your brain. All libraries, archives, repositories and public records offices will be re
Can't tell (not telepathic), but I'm in support of this right and I can tell you what I think: The Internet is full of half-truths and outright lies. Search engines do not deliver results based on the truth value of sites, but on popularity, page ranking and such. If, 10 years ago, you were arrested for child porn, with headlines in the newspapers. Three months later, charges were dropped, everyone apologized profoundly to you for the mistake, the government paid a ton of money for your troubles and the pro
We can do nothing about people remembering things wrong. But we can do something about search engines creating false impressions.
This is not about that. This is about search engines creating accurate impressions. See, it was already illegal in many of these countries to say bad things about people, sometimes even when they were true. But now people in these countries have the right to ask people to forget about things about them which are true. In most cases they didn't need a new law in order to actually go after people spreading rumors about them on the internet, the original laws would suffice. What this does is actually protect t
But now people in these countries have the right to ask people to forget about things about them which are true
Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.
However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page. By maintaining this association, Google are basically stating "this is one of the most relevant thing about person X", and if what it points to is irrelevant/out of
Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.
However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page.
There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it. The data might be out there someplace, but if you can't find it, then you can't make use of it.
No, it's about requiring search engines to stop returning irrelevant items about a person when asked for relevant items,
As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.
Without this law, search engines could report results which are false and do harm with impunity.
No, no they couldn't, because you'd click on the links and you'd see the actual result. Search engines can only report what is there; they might report on it incorrectly, but you can always check up on them.
There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it.
And by "you" I assume you mean "Google", so not actually "you" at all. That's the point. No-one is required to forget anything, not even Google in fact. This isn't even the Right to be Forgotten that the EU proposed, it's just bog standard data retention laws. Don't forget that corporations are not people in the EU either.
When you type someone's name into Google, you are asking them to research and return relevant data on that person. This is a commercial service, run for a profit. Like any commercial servi
As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.
Only to the extent that the law allows.
The law already included a solution to the problem of misleading information in at least some EU countries; you can have the material taken down, because it is already illegal there. Hell, even some non-misleading material is illegal in some of those countries, those in which the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. A new law seeking to hide the illegal information is not the solution. It only really seeks to do two things: one, let people hide their misdeeds, and two, attempt to hide the extent of the failure of laws against stupid people saying stupid shit on the internet.
This is clearly futile... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, seriously, what will they be doing next? Asking all proxies, VPNs, and TOR to filter "right to be forgotten" search results. All airlines and airports offering international flights will require memory wipers to remove any "right to be forgotten knowledge" from your brain. All libraries, archives, repositories and public records offices will be re
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
What's going through the EU's mind right now?
Can't tell (not telepathic), but I'm in support of this right and I can tell you what I think: The Internet is full of half-truths and outright lies. Search engines do not deliver results based on the truth value of sites, but on popularity, page ranking and such. If, 10 years ago, you were arrested for child porn, with headlines in the newspapers. Three months later, charges were dropped, everyone apologized profoundly to you for the mistake, the government paid a ton of money for your troubles and the pro
Re: (Score:3)
We can do nothing about people remembering things wrong. But we can do something about search engines creating false impressions.
This is not about that. This is about search engines creating accurate impressions. See, it was already illegal in many of these countries to say bad things about people, sometimes even when they were true. But now people in these countries have the right to ask people to forget about things about them which are true. In most cases they didn't need a new law in order to actually go after people spreading rumors about them on the internet, the original laws would suffice. What this does is actually protect t
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.
However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page. By maintaining this association, Google are basically stating "this is one of the most relevant thing about person X", and if what it points to is irrelevant/out of
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.
However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page.
There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it. The data might be out there someplace, but if you can't find it, then you can't make use of it.
No, it's about requiring search engines to stop returning irrelevant items about a person when asked for relevant items,
As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.
Without this law, search engines could report results which are false and do harm with impunity.
No, no they couldn't, because you'd click on the links and you'd see the actual result. Search engines can only report what is there; they might report on it incorrectly, but you can always check up on them.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it.
And by "you" I assume you mean "Google", so not actually "you" at all. That's the point. No-one is required to forget anything, not even Google in fact. This isn't even the Right to be Forgotten that the EU proposed, it's just bog standard data retention laws. Don't forget that corporations are not people in the EU either.
When you type someone's name into Google, you are asking them to research and return relevant data on that person. This is a commercial service, run for a profit. Like any commercial servi
Re:This is clearly futile... (Score:2)
As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.
Only to the extent that the law allows.
The law already included a solution to the problem of misleading information in at least some EU countries; you can have the material taken down, because it is already illegal there. Hell, even some non-misleading material is illegal in some of those countries, those in which the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. A new law seeking to hide the illegal information is not the solution. It only really seeks to do two things: one, let people hide their misdeeds, and two, attempt to hide the extent of the failure of laws against stupid people saying stupid shit on the internet.