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
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 prosecutor who go your arrested lost his job.
That sounds nice in theory, but your stance makes a few assumptions: 1) there is a perfect objective view of what the truth is and 2) the internet is not a dynamic, adaptive source of information. For point 1, people may have two different perspectives on what should and should not be public knowledge. For example, if a politician is caught for embezzling money, they may want to be forgotten to avoid further persecution and move on with their life. Voters in other regions may want to know and remember that
How does one filter the good information from the bad?
Academically? Untracktable problem.
Pragmatically? If you can't find it on Google, then for 99% of the Internet users, it doesn't exist.
it fails because it ignores the technical constraints to implementing such an idea.
I say it succeeds, because it takes a pragmatic, real-world approach to the issue and accepts that its solution is not 100% pure mathematical perfection. But in the real world, 99% or 95% or 80% or sometimes just 51% is sufficient.
For example, if a politician is caught for embezzling money,
This point is much stronger and better thought-out.
Yes, in an ideal world, we could guarantee that the search results return a balanced view of the subject, with both pro and contra, bad deeds and good deeds, accusations and convictions as well as acquitals.
Until we live in that world, is it better to throw up your hands, accept Google's profits as more important than the life of innocent people ruined by "oh shrug, that's just how our search algorithm works" or is it better to protect real breathing humans and force Google to spend one millionth or so of its profits on it?
But at the same time, your problem is also the answer to why this law doesn't apply only to those innocently accused. Because there's no objective truth that would help us decide what to keep and what to forget.
without bringing child pornography into it.
I chose that specifically, because for other crimes people might decide to simply ask you if it was true. For child porn, that's very unlikely. You'll just be dropped from the list of candidates without ever learning why.
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:2)
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 prosecutor who go your arrested lost his job.
That sounds nice in theory, but your stance makes a few assumptions: 1) there is a perfect objective view of what the truth is and 2) the internet is not a dynamic, adaptive source of information. For point 1, people may have two different perspectives on what should and should not be public knowledge. For example, if a politician is caught for embezzling money, they may want to be forgotten to avoid further persecution and move on with their life. Voters in other regions may want to know and remember that
Re:This is clearly futile... (Score:3)
How does one filter the good information from the bad?
Academically? Untracktable problem.
Pragmatically? If you can't find it on Google, then for 99% of the Internet users, it doesn't exist.
it fails because it ignores the technical constraints to implementing such an idea.
I say it succeeds, because it takes a pragmatic, real-world approach to the issue and accepts that its solution is not 100% pure mathematical perfection. But in the real world, 99% or 95% or 80% or sometimes just 51% is sufficient.
For example, if a politician is caught for embezzling money,
This point is much stronger and better thought-out.
Yes, in an ideal world, we could guarantee that the search results return a balanced view of the subject, with both pro and contra, bad deeds and good deeds, accusations and convictions as well as acquitals.
Until we live in that world, is it better to throw up your hands, accept Google's profits as more important than the life of innocent people ruined by "oh shrug, that's just how our search algorithm works" or is it better to protect real breathing humans and force Google to spend one millionth or so of its profits on it?
But at the same time, your problem is also the answer to why this law doesn't apply only to those innocently accused. Because there's no objective truth that would help us decide what to keep and what to forget.
without bringing child pornography into it.
I chose that specifically, because for other crimes people might decide to simply ask you if it was true. For child porn, that's very unlikely. You'll just be dropped from the list of candidates without ever learning why.