
The use of Europe’s “right to be forgotten” privacy law has broadened - curt15
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/technology/right-to-be-forgotten-law-europe.html
======
forgingahead
This is a very strange article with very unsympathetic protagonists. So two
Italian muckrakers can't make a living publishing random details about
people's lives, so what?

The issue here is that unlike today, even 20 years ago finding information
used to be _non-trivial_. So there was little long-term damage to having a
small Italian paper publish your name, in relation to charges that were
eventually dropped. It still wasn't ideal, but it wasn't fatal to your
reputation.

Today, anything and everything is online and follows people around like an
unshakeable shadow. So of course these folks have the "right to be forgotten"
\-- it's bringing balance back to the equation.

"Journalists" are the worst perpetrators of this -- shout the lies loudly, but
whisper the retraction or the truth. Good for the Europeans to have this law
in place.

~~~
duxup
What makes them "muckrakers"?

~~~
Barrin92
to me this stands out

>But Vittorio Pecoraro argued that his privacy had been violated. The article
was easily available and searchable online, and _he had not been convicted of
a crime_. Yet because of PrimaDaNoi, what he considered a humiliating family
argument had become the first thing that many people knew about him and his
pizza and seafood restaurant, he said.

>“I have a reputation, I have been here for 50 years, I am known all over,”
Mr. Pecoraro said in an interview at the restaurant, Positano, where the 2008
fight had occurred.

This situation has apparently threatened this man's business and it's not
clear to me that there is a case for public interest.

This journalist is literally a guy sitting in his apartment digging up stories
on private citizens. I actually agree with the court ruling here and I'm glad
that we have the right to be forgotten. I don't want to live in a society were
the commercial interests of paparazzi can destroy entire existences of people
even if the people in question have apparently moved on long ago.

I don't want to live in a society where people's careers or personal lifes are
ruined because someone at gawker or buzzfeed gets paid by clicks.

------
DarkWiiPlayer
Interesting question. While in principle it seems like a terrible idea to
force someone to delete such "important" information, I also kinda understand
how the person in question wouldn't want this information floating around
forever.

If I understand the situation correctly, it should probably be enough if this
journalist would anonymize the names in the article, so it can no longer be
traced back to any individual. After so many years, that does seem reasonable.

Also consider that journalists were never allowed to just publish anything.
There always had to be a public interest for them to be allowed to publish
certain details about peoples lives, so it only makes sense that they'd have
to remove it as this public interest fades with time, yet the impact on
peoples lives remains the same.

Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up when
googling your name is a news story like that. On the other hand, who really
cares about that story enough that it's worth possibly destroying someones
life over it?

\---

EDIT:

From the text > “My only duty is to write and verify information,” Mr.
Biancardi said from the apartment where he and Ms. Lotti worked 12-hour days
at side-by-side desks. “Everything else comes after.”

Interesting that the privacy of the subjects he writes about doesn't seem to
be a part of his thought process at all. If his defense was "There's still
(and always will be) a public interest in this case", then I might have
agreed, but with that attitude, I won't even call this guy a journalist.

~~~
distances
> Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up
> when googling your name is a news story like that.

Around here it's illegal to google applicants without their consent. Hiring
decisions can use only information that the applicant provided.

Granted, that's undetectable unless the person doing the hiring messes up and
mentions this. I do follow the law myself, don't really know what others are
doing.

Also not sure how widespread this requirement is even in Europe.

~~~
jcadam
> Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided.

That would seem to preclude things like criminal background checks, or even
calling up universities to verify any educational credentials the applicant
listed on their resume.

~~~
hyperman1
In my country, the state provides a cert to the applicant stating that his
background is sufficiently clean. No more details. You can't tell if I am
spotless or have done jail time but it was long enough ago not to matter
anymore.

It does containg language like ... has no criminal record, except for child
molestation etc... Which doesnt mean we're a country full of perverts, only
that it can't be trusted for jobs working with children, another cert is used
for that.

------
cirno
Let's address the elephant in the room: the problem lies with Google.

Prior to this recent NY Times article, why is a family brawl with minor
injuries and no charges that took place in 2008 shown on the first page of
results when someone is looking up a man's pizza and seafood restaurant? Is
that really the most relevant result that is in the public interest? I would
bet money the original story didn't even have any backlinks.

Bing and other search engines are not nearly as awful, but Google in
particular has a notoriously bad habit of promoting defaming content to the
top of its search results. And right now, they absolutely dominate the search
market.

It is my belief that Google's AI is optimized to prioritize "scandalous"
content, because it grabs readers' attention, in the same way National
Enquirer headlines at the grocery store checkout lane do.

Google does the same sort of thing with YouTube, promoting extremist content
above moderate content, and it has a real effect on people:
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/yo...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-
radical.html)

There is a real problem with online harassment and defamation, and Google is
contributing heavily to it by rewarding sites that peddle defaming content.

~~~
zaroth
I love this hypothesis because not only does it fit in perfectly with my world
view of Google, but because it’s entirely plausible to consider how their
algorithm could inadvertently optimize for such a result simply by looking at
click through and bounce rates.

People are likely to click on the most sensational result on the page, and in
cases like this they are pretty damn sure going to pick a different search
query afterward, which to the algorithm will look like success.

It seems like something easy to study and prove to a high degree of confidence
if it is occurring. Particularly the theory that other search engines don’t
surface the same negative content, or don’t rank it as highly.

~~~
cirno
I have done a significant amount of research into this, and compared results
through multiple search engines. I am confident this is mostly specific to
Google.

I would prefer not to name the sites in question, because they are borderline
illegal and I do not wish to give them exposure, but on the off chance any
journalists are reading this and are interested, please get in contact with me
here and I will share my findings.

------
PJDK
For context, the BBC publishes a list of articles that are hit by this ruling.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/authors/e7896818-cd4d-3...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/authors/e7896818-cd4d-3506-911c-b6d43ac16740)

After a quick click around some examples of what is being "forgotten"

Some people smugglers -
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8093741.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8093741.stm)

This review of best cities -
[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20151124-the-best-
city-...](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20151124-the-best-city-for-
working-families)

This story about someone not being entitled to privacy because of her roll in
public life -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18189668](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18189668)

This story about a former cabinet minister's troubles (lots of stuff about
Chris Huhne on the list) -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25814537](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25814537)

Related to above, Nick Clegg would like Chris Huhne to return to cabinet -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
politics-20978489](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20978489)

~~~
malms
how is that creating such a list not serve the opposite purpose of the law ??

~~~
jefftk
The idea is generally to keep things from showing up when you search for
people by name, not to remove the information entirely.

~~~
malms
So the law is only for google ? That make 0 sense

~~~
jefftk
Someone could make a Right to be Forgotten request to the BBC for the news
article, but they'd need to meet a higher standard. The listing is of ones
where people have asked to have the result removed from Google.

------
Fnoord
Just yesterday, I read "European Court limits right to be forgotten to E.U"
[1] linking to a court ruling at europa.eu [2]. RtBF can be circumvented e.g.
via a non-EU VPN / Tor exit node.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21058848](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21058848)

[2]
[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=218105&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=903295)

------
BAReF00t
Dear journalist...

it’s called forgiveness. Look it up.

The problem with permanent records is, that it forces you to never change.
Meaning you deliberately keep a murderer a murderer. Even in cases where their
life completely changed since then and they are a valuable contributor to
society again.

E.g. no matter how much you try … meet with your old buddies from the
school/city you left decades ago … and suddenly you’re the same loser again,
getting bullied just like back then.

And if my loved ones were murdered, the LAST thing I would want, is for the
murderer to not even be allowed to do good in the world to balance the evil.
Or to act like they did too, and do to them as they did to me.

Because as a child of people who had to murder in war, to not be tortured and
raped and murdered (three of my family membera were still murdered and two
tortured), I know very well, that there is no such thing as mentally
undamaged/unharmed person that intentionally murders somebody when it looks
like she has a choice. Or who does no regret it when they come to their
senses.

Let people heal! Violence, even simple holding a grudge and shaming, which is
what you did, dear journalist, is not making anything better. Only worse.

We aren’t truly out of the dark ages, until we forego revenge (aka
”punishment“ aka violent harm) and manage to fix even murderers and rapists to
make them functioning parts of society again.

------
SiempreViernes
The bit about damages is weird from a privacy standpoint, did Biancardi also
loose a defamation lawsuit or something? Or is it the other way in Italy, and
a defamation lawsuit can force you to take down material?

I realize this was mostly a story about a single case that some editor put an
overly broad headline on, but given the headline I was expecting more about
this "broadened" use.

Some discussion about if the right to be forgotten law has a larger impact
than the DMCA trolling would have been nice too.

------
nocturnial
Why is the right to be forgotten only discussed in the context of somebody
doing something illegal?

Suppose I wrote something on the internet a long time ago. And now it's being
replicated by companies who make their money by selling ads.

Now my words are being used to sell products I don't even like. I'd rather
have whatever I wrote be deleted than for someone to think whatever ad is
showing might be relevant.

~~~
learnstats2
This is a copyright/intellectual property issue, not a right to be forgotten
issue.

If you wrote it, outside of employment, you hold the copyright to what you
have written. I believe that is so internationally.

The hypothetical companies publishing that writing are breaching your
copyright.

Even if you were commissioned to write a piece for a particular purpose, it is
likely (by my understanding) that you still hold the copyright, and the
hypothetical companies are still breaching your copyright by using your work
for an unlicensed purpose.

~~~
nocturnial
You're right it's also a copyright issue.

What are your cost estimates if I treated it as a copyright issue and just
start suing everyone in breach as a private citizen for something I posted for
free for everyone?

In theory, your suggestion works. In practice, copyright laws are more
intended for companies and lawyers while privacy laws are for individuals.

edit: The right to be forgotten doesn't mention if there's also a copyright
violation I can't invoke it.

------
buboard
Well good it's not fundamental "right" (you have no rights to other people's
brains) - but courts should not accept what was written 10 years ago as
evidence for or against someone's character.

~~~
eridan2
why not? if he did something bad 10 years ago and he did again one month ago,
is says something about his character.

~~~
esarbe
gp wrote:

>but courts should not accept what was written 10 years ago as evidence for or
against someone's character.

you wrote:

>he did again one month ago

...

------
new_here
Why are some of the comments here defending the deletion of facts? If it's a
fact that you've stabbed someone and there is a police record to uphold that
then you should not have the right for that to be forgotten.

It's in the interest of other people to know if you have done something like
this previously (that warrants a police record) and also serves as a deterrent
to other potential perpitrators.

This article is interesting because it's an example of how the original
intention of the law is being exploited. Surely, this can just be refined with
an amendment.

~~~
cj
I think the key point is that there is a requirement that the facts being
deleted have no significant public interest [0]. So, for example, Boris
Johnson can't have his name removed from search results because there's a
public interest in preserving the historical record (can't delete facts with
significant relevance to the public), but you can have revenge porn deleted
(the public really could care less, and doesn't at all benefit from, what you
look like naked).

[0]
[http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...](http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=14612)

~~~
new_here
Maybe, but public interest is subjective. The line should probably be drawn at
legal offenses. If you commit a sexual offense (e.g. sex in public) that
warrants a police record, it should remain. However, if your privacy is
violated by someone else when you were not committing an offense then you
should have the right for that to be forgotten.

~~~
malms
Theres also the general problem of the truthness of what people write about
you online .. anyone can write anything so it shoulg be at least defendable to
be kept

~~~
new_here
Agreed, if something can’t be defended with reference to a legal offence or
proceeding then it should have the right to be forgotten / removed.

------
undecisive
Why can't the EU produce easy to follow guidelines and examples and make the
process fair?

Right to be forgotten shouldn't be about taking down the information, but
protecting those involved.

For example, let's take Grievous bodily harm. If a journalistic source reports
on a GBH case (such as this), we could come up with some rules that say the
publisher has the right to include:

\- identifying details about "incidentals" \- e.g. the victim (e.g. Name) or
location (e.g. Business name) for 3 years after the event. After that, they
must replace it with generalities - "A 39 year old man", "A restaurant on
Letsby Avenue". Must ensure that an individual person or business cannot be
identified from the generalized description without significant legwork.

\- identifying details about the perpetrator for a number of years after the
first article is published - at least 6. Their age should be a consideration
here - if a 90 year old stabs someone at dinner, I'd expect that to be
generalized after 5 years. If a 20 year old stabs someone at dinner, I'd
expect that to survive for 20 years. So assuming we now have a number between
6 and 20, if the person was not convicted, that number should be halved.

Once that's done for various classes of crimes, the process should be cheap
and easy - the publisher should be sent a letter by the subject or someone
with a vested interest in the article and request that the article be
redacted. Provided they give enough information, the publisher should be able
to look up the guidelines and either agree or reply with a reason. If they
refuse, they can be taken to court.

On a broader note, this is just another way that GDPR is broken. It feels like
the lawmakers wanted it to cover so much, that they wanted to right wrongs so
badly, that they didn't care who would get hurt in the process. Almost
retaliatory lawmaking.

------
9dl
This will be used like patents system

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
*ABused

Also no, that's what we have courts for: They decide if it is justified or not
to remove something from the internet. Not every legal system is as corrupt as
that of the USA¹, you know?

¹
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eatfgXTMFf0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eatfgXTMFf0)

------
narrator
If you are running some sort of politically connected criminal conspiracy GDPR
and "Right to be Forgotten" seem tailor made for coverups. No stuff left lying
around for Wikileaks or prosecutors. Any screw ups in the coverup can be
managed with "Right to be forgotten".

~~~
simion314
How can I use GDPR as a criminal? Do I ask google to delete my account? and
because a criminal asks to delete an account or an email Google should in fact
keep copies of all emails and all data forever? Browsers should then not allow
to delete your history because some criminal can use that functionality, it is
obvious a function created to hide stuff /s

~~~
narrator
I don't think one should be able to hide data from the proper authorities if
they are properly authorized by law, but one should be able to hide it from
non law enforcement. Browser history deleting and such are a reasonable
accommodation of the latter. I guess Wikileaks violates this rule, but they
don't care about violating people's privacy unless they're corrupt
politicians.

