How is it a civil case if it doesn't meet the legal requirements of slander?
It seems like we're weighting things differently -- I don't mind that a court may hear a case like this. My problem is they could really win in a place like Germany.
How is it a civil case if it doesn't meet the legal requirements of slander?
It seems like we're weighting things differently -- I don't mind that a court may hear a case like this. My problem is they could really win in a place like Germany.
Dread...it could easily win here. Nevermind, Google could very well settle.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
While it isn't entirely certain that autocomplete counts as speech, or that Google's search box can be libelous, to pretend that it's all about the random searches of unknown internet users is misguided. Google takes the search behaviour of other people and creates something else new with that information. The autocomplete suggestion, if it is speech and if Google is capable of speech, is more Google's speech than anyone else's. I wonder if autocomplete influences people's search behaviour
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, they almost certainly couldn't win in the US. But Germany...Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Of course it influences search behavior. All Internet searches influence other searches. That's sort of a key operative feature of search engines.While it isn't entirely certain that autocomplete counts as speech, or that Google's search box can be libelous, to pretend that it's all about the random searches of unknown internet users is misguided. Google takes the search behaviour of other people and creates something else new with that information. The autocomplete suggestion, if it is speech and if Google is capable of speech, is more Google's speech than anyone else's. I wonder if autocomplete influences people's search behaviour
http://boingboing.net/2012/09/25/eu-...duces-the.html
what is this i don't even* "Knowingly providing hyperlinks on websites to terrorist content must be defined by law as illegal just like the terrorist content itself"
* "Governments must disseminate lists of illegal, terrorist websites"
* "The Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 (art 1.2) should be explained that providing Internet services is included in providing economics instruments to Al Qaeda (and other terrorist persons and organisations designated by the EU) and therefore an illegal act"
* "On Voice over IP services it must be possible to flag users for terrorist activity."
* "Internet companies must allow only real, common names."
* "Social media companies must allow only real pictures of users."
* "At the European level a browser or operating system based reporting button must be developed."
* "Governments will start drafting legislation that will make offering... a system [to monitor Internet activity] to Internet users obligatory for browser or operating systems...as a condition of selling their products in this country or the European Union."
it starts bad and then slowly works its way into the realms of the insane.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
$400,000 for that steaming pile of bullshit. That's like a discount compared to what it costs to make a Website in California.I like the guy's responses:
Ars Technica's Cyrus Farivar tracked down a CleanIT spokesman on his home planet. But Klaasen is the Dutch national coordinator for counterterrorism and security, and he is really upset that we can read this stupid, stupid document full of recommendations that would be illegal in European law. He also can't believe that European Digital Rights, the NGO that published the leaked stupid, stupid document, didn't honor the confidentiality notice on the stupid, stupid cover-page.
"I do fully understand that the publishing of the document led to misunderstandings," he told Ars. "If we publish like this, it will scare people—that’s the reason that we didn’t publish it. It’s food for thought. We do realize these are very rough ideas."
..."You can compare [this situation] to taking pictures of what someone buys for dinner with how a dinner tastes—you don’t have the complete picture," he added.
..."We really didn’t expect that people would publish a document that clearly says ‘not for publication’—that really surprised us," he said. "I don’t know if it’s naive. Why can’t I trust people?" [Ed: Oh, diddums]
Poor Klaas can prepare himself for a media firestorm back in his homeland, questions surely will be asked in our house of representatives. Dutch voters, and politicians in there, do not like this kind of stuff (in fact, sometimes drift a bit too far in the other direction). There was a serious backlash on ACTA.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
To be fair, that isn't exactly the final product.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Cross posting.
It seems the insane rent-seeking German laws are now being taken-up by the French. Except the French are now living under medium-rare socialism, so the law is fast-tracked.
With some rank editorializing by the Associated Press: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...2d010ea56983cf
I understand Google told them to GTFO.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
A positive sign, for a change:
Nov 20, 2012 - 1:28AM PT
Why big data could sink Europe’s ‘right to be forgotten’
BY David Meyer
Europe’s proposed ‘right to be forgotten’ has been the subject of intense debate, with many people arguing it’s simply not practical in the age of the internet for any data to be reliably expunged from history.
Well, add another voice to that mix. The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) has published its assessment of the proposals, and the tone is sceptical to say the least. And, interestingly, one of the biggest problems ENISA has found has to do with big data.
The European Commission‘s proposals define the sort of data that has to be erased (if the data subject asks for it) in more than one way. Without wishing to get into comparison of various sections’ wording, here’s what ENISA has to say:
Here comes the kicker:“[The definitions] leave to interpretation whether [personal data] includes information that can be used to identify a person with high probability but not with certainty… Neither is it clear whether it includes information that identifies a person not uniquely, but as a member of a more or less small set of individuals, such as a family.”
That’s a pretty big problem. If data gets aggregated and crunched by analytics software, you can’t say in all cases that the process can’t be reverse-engineered, particularly when you’re correlating different sets of derived data. But getting it out is, well, a challenge.“A related question is how aggregated and derived forms of information (e.g. statistics) should be affected when some of the raw data from which statistics are derived are forgotten. Removing forgotten information from all aggregated or derived forms may present a significant technical challenge. On the other hand, not removing such information from aggregated forms is risky, because it may be possible to infer the forgotten raw information by correlating different aggregated forms.”
This isn’t the only problem ENISA’s identified. Here’s a tl;dr rundown of the report’s other comments and questions:
- When you have a photo on a social network that features multiple people, “who gets to decide if and when the photo should be forgotten?”
- The internet is not a closed system, and it spans multiple jurisdictions. “Enforcing the right to be forgotten is impossible in an open, global system, in general.”
- “Unauthorized copying of information by human observers is ultimately impossible to prevent by technical means.”
- You could try DRMing all data, but these things can be bypassed, and people wouldn’t like it.
- So what could work? “A possible partial solution may be a legal mandate aimed at making it difficult to find expired personal data, for instance, by requiring search engines to exclude expired personal data from their search results.”
ENISA is too politically savvy to just come out and say that the right to be forgotten is doomed, but they come pretty close.
Is it doomed? Quite possibly – which is a pity, in some ways, as it would be nice to avoid an inexorable slide into a world where people lose control over their own history.
As ENISA points out in its report, a fundamental problem with European laws such as this proposed revision to the data protection directive is that they need to be broad enough to be interpreted by member states in ways that fit with their national principles. Technical solutions don’t do ‘broad’. They need ‘specific’.
And with problems such as those highlighted by ENISA, good luck to the European Commission with nailing down those specifics in a way that pleases everyone.
http://gigaom.com/europe/why-big-dat...-be-forgotten/
I think it might be time to rename this thread, if you're going to keep using it as a megathread.
Hey now. That one was almost kinda on point.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The thread was always intended to be a megathread. And is named accurately, because I knew there would be ongoing examples of UnpraktischdeutschenInternet-Ideen (Impractical German Internet Ideas) that would reverberate around the Web and even spill into other countries. Sixteen months later and there's still ample fodder.
Within 24 hours of you starting this thread you expanded it to be EU wide in your ignorant bitching. Thread title does not reflect that.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Are you seriously blaming Germany for all this crap?
Reading that article, I can't help but note that the problem raised in the following quote is one that is solvable in principle:
"Change the definition and scope."“[The definitions] leave to interpretation whether [personal data] includes information that can be used to identify a person with high probability but not with certainty… Neither is it clear whether it includes information that identifies a person not uniquely, but as a member of a more or less small set of individuals, such as a family.”
"Acknowledge that such a total disappearance is unfeasible and don't attempt to guarantee/require it."“A related question is how aggregated and derived forms of information (e.g. statistics) should be affected when some of the raw data from which statistics are derived are forgotten. Removing forgotten information from all aggregated or derived forms may present a significant technical challenge. On the other hand, not removing such information from aggregated forms is risky, because it may be possible to infer the forgotten raw information by correlating different aggregated forms.”
"Eg. anyone in the photo."- When you have a photo on a social network that features multiple people, “who gets to decide if and when the photo should be forgotten?”
"Yet differences between jurisdictions don't stop eg. lawsuits against eg. google in specific jurisdictions so maybe this can still work to some reasonable extent."- The internet is not a closed system, and it spans multiple jurisdictions. “Enforcing the right to be forgotten is impossible in an open, global system, in general.”
"Dreadnaught votes to legalise piracy."- “Unauthorized copying of information by human observers is ultimately impossible to prevent by technical means.”
"But in reality that's unnecessary, we just wanted to say 'DRM' for added credibility and relevance."- You could try DRMing all data, but these things can be bypassed, and people wouldn’t like it.
"This here is one proposed solution for some of the most important problems we have found."- So what could work? “A possible partial solution may be a legal mandate aimed at making it difficult to find expired personal data, for instance, by requiring search engines to exclude expired personal data from their search results."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is what threw me off. Why wouldn't this be the default? Its not like the image is being destroyed. Its not being removed from anyone's collection. The decision for it not to be shared without permission is something that should be enforced, we do it for companies and trademark/copyright holders all the time. Do they have more rights over their products and designs than we do our bodies?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I was going to post about France's insane nationalization blackmail gambit on ArcelorMittal. But then I found this bit of news. Well done so far, Germany, keep it up.
German 'Google Tax' progresses through Bundestag
German lawmakers are sending legislation on possible copyright restrictions on Internet search engines, commonly called the "Google Tax," to an expert committee for further review.
The levy, being pushed by publishers, would require search engines to pay each time they link to media content including newspaper articles or photographs.
After a debate that began close to midnight, Parliament said in the early hours of this morning that the matter was passed on to its legal committee.
There was no immediate word on when the committee may issue recommendations.
A spokeswoman from the Bundestag explained: "After the first reading the draft will be sent to parliamentary committees. After debates in the committees the second and third readings (voting) take place in the plenary".
Google launched a campaign on November 27 dubbed "Defend Your Net" aimed at drumming up support to defeat the measure.
In the short online video, Google warns "for more than 10 years you've been able to find what you are looking for." A planned law, it says, "would change that."
The proposals would effectively extend copyright so Google, which has an almost complete monopoly on the German web search market, would pay to index and link to newspaper and magazine material online.
Like news publishers across the Western world, the German industry has been battered by economic forces and the gradual shift of readers from print to the web, where advertising rates are typically much lower.
Google does not publicly disclose how much it makes from Google News, but in 2008, its head of search Marissa Mayer, who left this year to become chief executive of Yahoo!, estimated the annual revenues at $100m. The figure is likely to have grown significantly since then, in line with increasing online news consumption.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...Bundestag.html
My word. While most of the Western world is preparing for Christmas and the Global South is trying to censor the Internet via the ITU, our Teutonic brothers are busy mounting their own heroic challenge to kill the Internet.
In particular, the petit (and petty) dictators known as "Data Protection Commissioners" in Schleswig-Holstein decided to open up two fronts against popular consumer products based on nonsense laws.
Facebook "must" allow people to have gibberish fake names-
Later that day, perhaps while on the toilet (when do they find the time for all this regulating?), the same data protection comissioner blithely suggested that Maps for mobile breaks laws without going into much detail:Privacy Champions Hand Facebook an Ultimatum
A German state privacy protection authority issued an ultimatum to Facebook this week: The company can either stop forcing members to use their real names, or face fines. The social networking site says it will fight the demands by Schleswig-Holstein, calling the measures a "waste of German taxypayer money."
One of Germany's top privacy regulators has ordered Facebook to stop its real-name policy, saying it violates the country's data protection laws.
In response to the social media site's refusal to allow pseudonyms, the Independent State Center for Data Privacy (ULD) in the northern state of Schleswig-Holstein issued an ultimatum to the company's California headquarters on Monday.
Should Facebook Inc., which operates in the United States, and its Irish subsidiary Facebook Ltd., which runs European operations, refuse to comply within two weeks, they each face a fine of €20,000 ($26,000), ULD said.
The German Telemedia Act allows the use of online nicknames and, as such, Facebook must too, ULD said in a statement, writing that the company's positions on this and other issues were "in diametric opposition" to those of German data protection authorities.
"It is unacceptable that a US portal like Facebook violates German data protection law unopposed and with no prospect of an end," Schleswig-Holstein State Privacy Commissioner and ULC Director Thilo Weichert said. "The aim of the order by the ULD is to finally bring about a legal clarification of who is responsible for Facebook and to what this company is bound to. ... We hope for a fact-based debate not aimed at delaying action."
'Waste of Taxpayer Money'
ULC, which serves as the state's official authority for enforcing data privacy, is known for its stringent approach to data protection, having taken on Google Street View and Facebook's "Like" button in recent years with limited success.
Facebook has been insisting that users register with their real names, even encouraging them to out friends who fail to comply and blocking those users, claiming that this will help keep the site secure.
But ULD insists that anyone who has been thrown off the site for using a pseudonym must immediately be allowed to resume their membership, and users must also be informed of the option to use a nickname if they so choose.
In a statement to the ULD, the social network justified its position, saying that its Irish subsidiary Facebook Ltd. complies with European law.
Still, Facebook plans to fight the ULD's claims. "In our view, the decree is completely unfounded and a waste of German taxpayer money," a Facebook spokesperson said. "We will fight it vigorously."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-873562.html
Meanwhile, down south in Berlin, a date has been sent for a Parliamentary debate over the absurd "ancillary copyright" law that will arbitrarily make certain sites pay other sites to link to one another.Google Maps for iOS may violate European data protection law
German watchdog says the issue is turning location data sharing on by default.
by Nathan Mattise - Dec 15 2012, 5:00pm EST
Not everyone was euphoric when Google Maps for iOS showed up earlier this week. Take the Independent Centre for Privacy Protection in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany for instance. Computerworld spoke to the organization's deputy privacy and information commissioner, Marit Hansen, who expressed concerns about the app's location data sharing. By having this option switched on by default, Hansen says, it violates European data protection law.
When downloading the Google Maps iOS app, users are initially met with location data sharing information. "Anonymous location data will be collected by Google's location service and sent to Google, and may be stored on your device," users are warned. And, as Hansen notes, Google has already made the decision to agree for you. Simply "accept & continue" without another glance, right?
Hansen's main gripe is that Google's use of "anonymous" is misleading. "All available information points to having linkable identifiers per user," she told Computerworld. Hansen added this would allow Google to track several location entries, thus leading to her assumption that Google's "anonymous location data" would be considered "personal data" under the European law.
If Google is approached formally about this, it wouldn't be their first run-in with European privacy law. In March, the EU called a company privacy change policy illegal. In Germany specifically, the Hamburg data protection authority said they felt "duped" after the FCC showed Google deliberately captured people's WiFi payload data with its roaming Street View cars back in May.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...rotection-law/
Germany: Leading the way in making the Internet unviable in Europe.December 17, 2012 2:38 pm
Gloves come off in Google v Germany
By Gerrit Wiesmann in Berlin, Giulia Segreti in Rome, Hugh Carnegy in Paris and James Shotter in Zurich
Google and German newspaper publishers are poised to trade blows at a parliamentary hearing at the end of January over plans to allow Germany’s print media to charge internet search engines for displaying links to newspaper articles.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and their Free Democrat junior partners want to force online news aggregators like Google to ask permission to publish links to and excerpts of newspapers’ web offerings – an extension of copyright that many lawmakers hope will allow publishers to charge licence fees of Google and its rivals.
The proposal is intended to allow newspapers better to recoup some of the revenue they have lost as advertisers and readers migrate to the web.
The legislative push is increasingly also attracting the notice of newspaper owners and politicians in other European countries such as France and Italy.
In Germany, the legal committee of the Bundestag has scheduled a public hearing for January 30, suggesting the ruling coalition’s hope of passing its so-called ancillary copyright bill by the summer remain on track.
So worried is Google about the bill before the Bundestag that it has launched a campaign warning it could end easy access to information on the web and calling for Google users to phone or email their local member of parliament in protest.
The company hopes that Germans opposed to legislation will draw strength from an agreement between Google and French-language publishers in Belgium last week. The publishers association Copiepresse withdrew a six-year legal campaign which accused Google’s news service of breaching newspapers’ copyright in return for an initiative to push more Google users on to their websites.
With newspapers across Europe struggling to make money, publisher groups in France, Italy, Portugal and Switzerland have joined their German peers to call for “regulation of the digital economy” and “rebalancing the economy of the web”.
In a statement published recently, France’s Association de la Presse IPG, the Federazione Italiana Editori Giornali (Fieg), Médias Suisses, and the Associação Portuguesa de Imprensa joined German groupings BDVZ and VDZ in a pledge to pursue ancillary copyright at national level and to co-ordinate internationally.
In France, publishers appear to be making progress. In an October meeting with Eric Schmidt, Google chairman, President François Hollande threatened to draft legislation forcing Google to pay a share of its revenues derived from links to articles if it did not reach a deal to do so with French publishers by year’s end.
The government appointed a mediator earlier this month in a bid to reach an agreement between the two sides. However, the French president warned: “If it is necessary a law will be introduced on this issue, following the German example.”
In Italy, publishers have identified an initiative by Alessio Butti, a senator from Silvio Berlusconi’s People of Liberty party, as the foundation for a similar legislative push. The move is said to have cross party support – although there is no clear timetable for legislation, especially now the country faces a national election early in 2013.
But Fieg, which reckons about 30 per cent of traffic on search engines is related to editorial products, remains committed to the project. “Above all it’s a matter of protecting a product. If [search engines] are making business from news then it is correct for them to recognise so,” Fabrizio Carotti, director-general, told the FT.
Having said in 2010 that copyright law did not need overhauling, even the Swiss government has now softened its stance, with the Ministry of Justice convening a working group to look into the issue. But Daniel Hammer, secretary-general of Médias Suisses, warned it would take several years for any changes to be adopted.
In Germany, meanwhile, legislative aides are confident about a speedy passage for ancillary copyright in the Bundestag, even though some members of the ruling parties and most opposition Social Democrats and Greens oppose the changes.
The two latter parties hold sway in the upper house, the Bundesrat, which could delay final approval of the bill from April into May, but it cannot veto a bill which affects only the federal government and not the states. “If anything,” one aide said, “Google’s campaign has emboldened the coalition parties to see this through.”
Google says the campaign “Protect your web – find what you’re looking for” is a success. A spokesman told the FT some 1.5m people had visited the site since it went live late October, with 60,000 users signing up to protest against the bill.
But the company’s attempt to incite a grass-roots protest against the bill by allowing users to search for the – publicly available – email address and phone numbers of their MP has angered lawmakers and even members of the Merkel government.
Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger expressed shock at how the company was trying to influence public opinion. “There are other search engines than Google,” she said. Philipp Rösler, economy minister, warned Google “to watch for the difference between protecting one’s interests and misleading the public”.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9e2e988e-4...44feabdc0.html
calls others petty...uses toilet references in post
can someone explain how not using your real name online "kills the internet" or at least makes it "unviable"?
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
... and I'm unaware of FB's "no-pseudonym" policy. My FB name is a pseudonym.
I just find it amusing considering that the one EU anti-terrorism group said they wanted to ban the use of pseudonyms on the internet.calls others petty...uses toilet references in post
can someone explain how not using your real name online "kills the internet" or at least makes it "unviable"?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Yeah, it's something they've had for a while to make sure it's a network of your "real" friends. If their algorithm flags you as someone who may be using a pseudonym, they sometimes ask your friends in a small dialog box if you are using your real name.
I have no idea how effective it is. But I don't think having a real name policy should be illegal. Or that regulators should even be caring about things like this on a social network.
Note the EU body above proposing that internet companies allow only real names.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Indeed.
Not exactly new for governments to get involved in that either. South Korea and China both have laws that cover using real names online. The US itself has pushed for a similar idea.
“The National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC or Strategy) charts a course for the public and private sectors to collaborate to raise the level of trust associated with the identities of individuals, organizations, networks, services, and devices involved in online transactions”
Not that its surprising, the various US departments commonly suggest or create shit that the other departments either hate or had no say in (and its hardly unique to the US). Tor being the biggest example of one department helping protect privacy and other departments hating it for the privacy it provides (to the point of arresting people who run parts of the network)
but hey, germany is evil blah blah blah
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
There's nothing in there actually suggesting they make a law to that effect is there? Not that governments all over the world aren't falling over themselves to make stupid laws about the internet, but Germany does seem to be rather ahead of the pack at the moment.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Not a law, not yet at least, its an veiled suggestion that businesses should attempt something before the government steps in, its part of the reason Google so forcefully attempted only real names with Google+, why Youtube asks everytime you log in for permission to permanently use your full name, and why Facebook has a real name policy.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 12-19-2012 at 01:40 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
