"Right" to be "Forgotten"

[Dreadnaught]

I come out of a cocaine-addled hole in Berlin and find people rejoicing in the streets. THE INTERNET HAS BEEN DEFEATED they cry. Men and women start ripping off their clothes, simultaneously murdering and fucking each other while people tape them. Then fucking and murdering the people making the tapes for violating their "rights". ALL CAN BE FORGOTTEN they cheer and cheer and cheer.

But seriously, is there anyone here sympathetic to this? I couldn't even put this in my normal thread for this, it seems beyond bonkers. I had to come back to avoid my brain exploding.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, Dread, it's pretty easy to make your head explode - or rather, implode. Because, y'see, voids usually implode.

Over here we find your culture of putting someone in the pillory by putting his mugshot online to be positively medieval (as in: The Dark Ages).

As far as it goes, this is a pretty pathetic attempt at trolling. I once again raise the question: Why is this moron allowed to be admin?

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm curious how this works any differently than the way businesses abuse the DMCA in the US.

Google even uses a similar link by link form
https://support.google.com/legal/con...duct=websearch

[Khendraja'aro]

It seems to follow the same legal groundwork which determines whether someone's photo may be published or has to be anonymized. At least the wording: "[we will] attempt to balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information." is pretty much similar to the rules our press runs under (and certain tabloids run afoul of quite often).

Which in turn means that something like an article about a teenager shoplifting would fall under the right to be forgotten, while the participants of the NSU process would have a much harder time arguing their case.

[Wraith]

As far as it goes, this is a pretty pathetic attempt at trolling. I once again raise the question: Why is this moron allowed to be admin?

We can't have a rule saying that the US is the only country allowed to be criticized. Is there some mod action he's taken this year that you take issue with?

[LittleFuzzy]

We can't have a rule saying that the US is the only country allowed to be criticized. Is there some mod action he's taken this year that you take issue with?

Well that doesn't sound right. People only criticize the US because it is so obviously wrong. And if posters from the US are trying to criticize anything in Germany, that's just them being wrong in a different way.

[Khendraja'aro]

We can't have a rule saying that the US is the only country allowed to be criticized. Is there some mod action he's taken this year that you take issue with?

I'm taking issue with his wording, not the content. Seriously guys, you critizise me all the time for being antagonistic and then a moderator comes along and posts this inflammatory shit. Seriously?

As I see it, if you let that stand then you're being pretty hypocritical if you then critizise me. Sorry. Can't have one without the other.

[Flixy]

But seriously, is there anyone here sympathetic to this? I couldn't even put this in my normal thread for this, it seems beyond bonkers. I had to come back to avoid my brain exploding.

I'm at least not unsympathetic. Frankly, if it's apparently no problem to regulate this when it concerns copyright, I don't see why it's suddenly insane when it comes to privacy. And those rights are almost constantly attempted to be enforced yet more vigorously...

[earthJoker]

Well that doesn't sound right. People only criticize the US because it is so obviously wrong. And if posters from the US are trying to criticize anything in Germany, that's just them being wrong in a different way.

Where is the connection to Germany?

[RandBlade]

This is a patently ludicrous ruling against free speech. The problem is this isn't about any right to be "forgotten" or remove "old" information, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy either. It is purely about people wanting to cherry-pick negative information they want removing which is completely different. It sets in motion this idea that you can have a golden gloss of positive information only.

One early person wanting to use this 'right' is a politician seeking to remove references to a scandal. If you're seeking to be forgotten then all information older than a certain point should be removed - the good and the bad. Seeking to whitewash away only the negative points has nothing about truth or privacy.

EG as someone helping run a business then under old laws I am required to keep all paperwork related to accounts/pay etc for a period of 7 years. After 7 years that obsolete information can be trashed. I can't remove what makes me look bad, I need an honest record of what's recent. To be forgotten as its being labelled should mean that recent stuff is kept and all old stuff is removed, not trying to gloss over parts you dislike.

[Flixy]

This is a patently ludicrous ruling against free speech. The problem is this isn't about any right to be "forgotten" or remove "old" information, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy either. It is purely about people wanting to cherry-pick negative information they want removing which is completely different. It sets in motion this idea that you can have a golden gloss of positive information only.

One early person wanting to use this 'right' is a politician seeking to remove references to a scandal. If you're seeking to be forgotten then all information older than a certain point should be removed - the good and the bad. Seeking to whitewash away only the negative points has nothing about truth or privacy.

EG as someone helping run a business then under old laws I am required to keep all paperwork related to accounts/pay etc for a period of 7 years. After 7 years that obsolete information can be trashed. I can't remove what makes me look bad, I need an honest record of what's recent. To be forgotten as its being labelled should mean that recent stuff is kept and all old stuff is removed, not trying to gloss over parts you dislike.

As I understand it (I might be wrong) the standard is pretty much the same as with newspapers, i.e. newsworthiness trumps privacy. A politician wanting to cover up a scandal should not be covered by this. This is why I posted I am not unsympathetic rather than that I am sympathetic, since I'm a bit scared it will be abused like the similar copyright removals. It's far from unheard of that perfectly legal material is removed after a single unfounded complaint that isn't checked because the service provider is liable if they don't remove it and it was copyrighted.

[Ominous Gamer]

As I understand it (I might be wrong) the standard is pretty much the same as with newspapers, i.e. newsworthiness trumps privacy. A politician wanting to cover up a scandal should not be covered by this. This is why I posted I am not unsympathetic rather than that I am sympathetic, since I'm a bit scared it will be abused like the similar copyright removals. It's far from unheard of that perfectly legal material is removed after a single unfounded complaint that isn't checked because the service provider is liable if they don't remove it and it was copyrighted.

Most links I've read about this say the law includes a "relevant" clause. Which makes sense. The US has a serious issue with websites logging police mugshots, which happen when arrested, then charging hundreds of dollars to get those shots removed. Even if you're not charged with anything or beat the case.

So tying it to a time frame wouldn't work, cause you shouldn't have to erase your entire online footprint because your skin is the same color as a local rapist.

The issue comes down to who gets to decide on whats relevant. This is why I tied it back the US' DMCA. Anyone anywhere can file a DMCA claim with very little to fear, and that claim has to followed until challenged. Challenges which include a much much higher risk if lost. This has allowed DMCA claims to be filed at such a high rate that major sites pretty much have to automate the process with little human interaction. I can see that happening with this "right to be forgotten" as well.

[Khendraja'aro]

OG, from what I've read, the current idea is to have an independent committee for arbitration, just to decide such issues.

[Lewkowski]

OG, from what I've read, the current idea is to have an independent committee for arbitration, just to decide such issues.

Ah and liberals would love that because now we need more bureaucratic government workers!

[LittleFuzzy]

Where is the connection to Germany?

Khend. He's a lot less explosive when Dread's comments are limited to non-German targets like France.

[Ominous Gamer]

Birdman (basketball player) is a good example in the US of how the internet can ruin your life. 2012 was full of reports connecting him to child porn and rape. All thanks to an internet troll.

Should he not have an avenue to get some of the worst and most misleading articles removed, and help bring some dignity back to his name, without having to add on to the years of court, police, and lawyers he has already gone through and will continue to be involved with because of this?

[Khendraja'aro]

Khend. He's a lot less explosive when Dread's comments are limited to non-German targets like France.

Please rest assured that I'm convinced of Dread's utter stupidity regardless of topic. Not to mention that there are not a lot a threads he makes where he doesn't bash the EU or Germany specifically somehow.

[RandBlade]

Libel laws already exist if the information is false.

[Khendraja'aro]

This is a bit different, Rand.

Let's put it this way: You're arrested and charged for murdering two babies. The charges turn out to be false and yet, when someone Googles your name, the first result is "Rand charged with heineous crime!" even after some years.

Not something you want to carry around the rest of your life. There are quite a lot of people out there who think that "charged with a crime" and "convicted of a crime" is equivalent. See those mugshot-blackmail sites in the US for reference: They wouldn't make money if that weren't the case.

Not to mention: You've just gone through the ringer and now you have to fight several new battles and spend even more money to clear your name. That's a nice sentiment.

[Ominous Gamer]

Libel laws already exist if the information is false.

If you're replying to me, the case involving the troll looks like it won't go to court until 2015, and after those charges they are hoping to extradite her to other states to continue charges. Even if the courts bury this troll, none of it fixes the damage she has already done.

over here its much harder for celebs to win libel cases, you have to prove "actual malice". thats high risk, high bills, long court waits and your name going through the mud again. For each and every site that needs addressed.


edit: and yes i see that since the troll hasn't been sentenced yet this discussion could very well turn into the very thing I'm warning about. the internets' ability to rapidly spread assumed guilt.

[RandBlade]

I don't think selective censorship is a good route to go down under any circumstances. So some can go around doctoring their own history, the BBC had an online interview with someone about this who wants to use this to remove references to a criminal conviction. If people get to cherrypick negative links to remove who is removing the positive ones?

Google is pretty good at getting balanced and accurate results - airbrushing out parts we dislike will not make it more accurate.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes, Rand, because he wants it he'll automagically get it.

I want a pony and a million dollars. Following your logic, I should be rich and in possession of a pony really soon.

[Ominous Gamer]

While we're at it, I'll take a new car.

on a serious note, there seems to be an issue here concerning privacy that people are taking seriously. That form I posted earlier, already used by more than 12,000 people.

Khend. He's a lot less explosive when Dread's comments are limited to non-German targets like France.

missed this. would have been interesting to see the different reply if dread had gone with the french case, which predates the german ruling by 2 months.

[RandBlade]

Yes, Rand, because he wants it he'll automagically get it.

I want a pony and a million dollars. Following your logic, I should be rich and in possession of a pony really soon.

The court has given an automatic presumption it should be removed unless good reason otherwise not the other way around, so unless Google spends a fortune to review each case its likely to end up almost-automatic yes, like DMCA but worse.

[Khendraja'aro]

The court has given an automatic presumption it should be removed unless good reason otherwise not the other way around, so unless Google spends a fortune to review each case its likely to end up almost-automatic yes, like DMCA but worse.

If you spared just a second to think about it, how on Earth would "the other way around" even be workable for a normal citizen? Oh, great, let's go to court. Yeah, that'll work out great.

[RandBlade]

If you spared just a second to think about it, how on Earth would "the other way around" even be workable for a normal citizen? Oh, great, let's go to court. Yeah, that'll work out great.

Yes it would be great because the importance of the truth and free speech trumps somebody being irritated. There should be a very high bar before you start censorship and ignorance. Setting a low bar, yeah that'll work out great

[Khendraja'aro]

Why should free speech trump the right to privacy? I don't see the need why I should have to know whether my neighbour stole a bicycle 20 years back.

Seriously, the pillory seems like a good idea, Rand, until you yourself have been put through one. Maybe you need a dose of that kind of life you'd have to endure then.

[Ominous Gamer]

trumps somebody being irritated.

and you don't think you're downplaying the effects of having something negative tied to your name online...even a little?

[RandBlade]

Why should free speech trump the right to privacy? I don't see the need why I should have to know whether my neighbour stole a bicycle 20 years back.

Seriously, the pillory seems like a good idea, Rand, until you yourself have been put through one. Maybe you need a dose of that kind of life you'd have to endure then.

If its true that your neighbour did that then its true, he shouldn't have and living with the truth is part of the consequences of his own actions. Not a reason to censor the truth. I'd have more sympathy maybe if it was fallacious, but then as I said we have libel laws already for that. Though given that search engines generally have a priority to newer and more popular information I'm curious why a bicycle 20 years ago would be top of the search engine anyway. Maybe do something more current and productive to bump it off.

and you don't think you're downplaying the effects of having something negative tied to your name online...even a little?

And you don't think you're downplaying the cost of censorship?

Again this has been ignored but why should someone be entitled to whitewash away the negative aspects of the past and keep the positive ones?

[Ominous Gamer]

Again this has been ignored but why should someone be entitled to whitewash away the negative aspects of the past and keep the positive ones?

You should read the court ruling. The value of privacy and public access to information is discussed by the judge.