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.
As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.
The arrogance betrayed by that comment is exactly why laws like this are necessary.
If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.
If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.
You are so right. That is precisely why I need to be provided with all of the search results, so that I can make up my own mind.
And if you were guaranteed to be provided with complete information and somehow constrained to read through every Google result for your search term to make sure you were fully informed before acting and somehow constrained to act fairly and without unjustified discrimination based on that information, this whole "right to be forgotten" idea wouldn't be relevant.
Unfortunately, that isn't very practical, so we have to look for another solution to the problem of people being damaged by, collectively, those who present incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the victim, those who allow others to find that information, and those who then act unfairly in light of that information. Keep in mind that this can and does happen even if there is good faith on the part of all concerned, because in general no party other than the victim necessarily knows enough to prevent the damage alone.
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)
As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.
The arrogance betrayed by that comment is exactly why laws like this are necessary.
If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.
You are so right. That is precisely why I need to be provided with all of the search results, so that I can make up my own mind.
Re:This is clearly futile... (Score:2)
And if you were guaranteed to be provided with complete information and somehow constrained to read through every Google result for your search term to make sure you were fully informed before acting and somehow constrained to act fairly and without unjustified discrimination based on that information, this whole "right to be forgotten" idea wouldn't be relevant.
Unfortunately, that isn't very practical, so we have to look for another solution to the problem of people being damaged by, collectively, those who present incomplete or otherwise misleading information about the victim, those who allow others to find that information, and those who then act unfairly in light of that information. Keep in mind that this can and does happen even if there is good faith on the part of all concerned, because in general no party other than the victim necessarily knows enough to prevent the damage alone.