
'Right to be forgotten' could threaten global free speech, say NGOs - ihatethem
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/09/right-to-be-forgotten-could-threaten-global-free-speech-say-ngos
======
conception
I haven't been able to think of a middle ground but there seems like there
should be between "I can get rid of embarrassing things as a public official
or celebrity on the internet" and "I rather not have websites like mylife.com,
doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal history
without any recourse."

Curious if HN has any ideas how to approach that issue?

~~~
swebs
>doxing me by posting my home address, contact information and personal
history without any recourse

Why should that information be protected in the first place? It's not much
different than a phone book. Your full name, address, phone number, etc are
all linked to your identity. Once someone has one, it becomes nearly
impossible to stop them from getting the others.

The problem with doxxing is that it usually comes with a threat of violence
from ideological opponents. I think what many people should be fighting for is
the right to anonymity. For your identity to never be revealed in the first
place. Free speech can't truly be expressed if having the "wrong" opinion
leads to some wingnut smashing your head with a bike lock.

~~~
conception
I feel like your second point answers your first. The difference between
information sharing in the past and today is obviously the problem of scale.
Looking up your neighborhood used to be useful and small chance of people bike
locking you. Now, the scale has increased a thousand fold. What was .01% of a
crazy hunting you down maybe is 1%? 10%?

Maybe a right to anonymity with the efficiency losses you get there is worth
it? Tough issue.

------
curt15
What prevents China from similarly demanding Apple to de-list apps from non-
Chinese app stores that mention Tiananmen Square?

~~~
adventured
Nothing prevents that now, other than corporations having a backbone and or
China thinking it's outside of their influence to demand (for now).

China is already getting pretty busy at exerting its influence on foreign
entities to do things like that. Things that relate to its perceived national
interest and identity, censorship, etc. Such as the demands placed on airlines
as it relates to Taiwan (which isn't a Chinese territory and is a free
nation).

You won't see any Winnie the Pooh baby blimps floating over London on Xi's
next visit. Iran isn't going to refuse to sell oil to China over Xinjiang.
Germany isn't going to refuse a natural gas pipeline with Putin's Russia. All
countries, and most corporations, compromise their supposed morals on a
routine basis when it suits them. Nike, they of vast sweatshop labor, feel
free to simultaneously run ads promoting moral enlightenment.

~~~
amarkov
Sure. But if European countries can insist on globally de-indexing truthful
information because they feel its continued propagation is harmful, that
seriously undercuts any moral high ground available when China tries to do the
same.

------
curt15
>That judgment allowed European citizens to ask search engines to remove links
to “inadequate, irrelevant or ... excessive” content

The critical terms "inadequate", "irrelevant" are dangerously subjective.
What's irrelevant to one person may be of great interest to another.

~~~
megous
It is obvious that people have conflictng desires, but so what? What's your
conclusion from that?

"Unrestricted" freedom of speech favours just one side.

~~~
acct1771
The side speaking.

So, unless one side is deaf... or, in this case, fingers are broken...

~~~
megous
Your meaning is not clear to me.

~~~
acct1771
Freedom of Speech favors the speaking side.

So, one must speak!

------
panzagl
There is a fine line between 'right to be forgotten' and 'ability to be
disappeared'.

------
NedIsakoff
Canada has already had court ruling forcing Google to delete pages globally
(not just the Canada domain). So why not Europe?

~~~
pc86
Serious question, how can Canada force Google to do something globally?

~~~
pixl97
I have a gun, I can force you to do whatever I want.

That said, the Canadian government can only 'kill' Google in Canada. Since
Google wants those Canadian dollars, they will comply.

This is a serious danger with multinational companies. More and more sovereign
nations will force these corporations to comply with demands that conflict
with the desires of peoples in other nations.

Would Google give the information on select US users that have visited China
to the Chinese government?

Would Google give the information on select US users that have visited China
to the Chinese government if it meant getting kicked out of a $50 billion
market?

When business interests dictate that money comes first, and ideals like
freedom come later, money always wins.

------
saghm
Sorry if this is an ignorant question, but "NGOs" just means "non-governmental
organizations"; would it be accurate refer to any arbitrary group of companies
(that are unaffiliated with any government) as "NGOs"? While the article does
specify that it is a "British-led alliance of NGOs", it seems to me like one
could call a group consisting of Google, Facebook, and other similar companies
as "NGOs"; what's to say that these NGOs aren't just companies that profit off
of the lack of a "right to be forgotten"?

~~~
detaro
The term isn't 100 % clearly defined, but generally only refers to non-profits
and similar entities, not traditional companies.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
governmental_organization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
governmental_organization)

~~~
saghm
Ah, thanks! I guess I should have googled instead of just relying on my
knowledge of the definitions of the individual words

------
yifanl
My personal issue with unilateral free speech is that it's kind of self-
defeating.

To my understanding, the essential value of free speech is that it protects
the unpopular voices... but because of how the system works, the ones without
power have substantially more difficulty having their ideas heard. Unilateral
free speech makes it impossible for anything except the popular opinions to be
voiced without being drowned out.

I can't think of a solution to this, unfortunately.

------
zeveb
_Could_? By its very nature the soi-disant 'right' to be forgotten _does_
threaten free speech, since governments use it to silence people telling
truthful information.

This isn't about libel: it's about criminals and wrongdoers wanting the
Internet to be wiped clean of evidence of their crimes or wrongdoing.

~~~
mattmanser
That's sort of the point of rehabilitation, and the end of a prison sentence
being the end of society's punishment.

If you have a legitimate reason to find out a criminal past you can request a
criminal background check.

And that's not even including all the other legitimate reasons, like any one
who did something stupid as a teenager, has a vicious stalker, did something
embarrassing once, has changed their views, has changed themselves, etc.

People change. Computers can't comprehend that.

------
Tomte
Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all
democracies in the Western world, it merely threatens the extremely expansive
interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment.

Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.

~~~
qubax
> Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all
> democracies in the Western world

Not good. Most of the western world doesn't have free speech.

> it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in
> America's First Amendment.

It isn't an "expansive" interpretation. It's the definition of free speech.

Your "western democracies" have the same understanding of free speech as saudi
arabia, russia and china does ( aka "you are free to say things only we
approve of" ). That's not free speech by any definition.

Besides, when it comes to things like free speech or human rights, one should
err on the side of too much free speech or human rights rather than less.

~~~
mikejb
So if I go to the Airport in Atlanta, and in the security line I express the
opinion that the TSA is full of shit, and terrorists are just desperate's
people's freedom fighters, I won't have to suffer repercussions?

The claimed interpretation of "absolute free speech" helps drive the narrative
of "we're better than everyone else", but both quoted concepts are bullshit.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
You would not be imprisoned.

You could at least try the "fire in a crowded theater argument." Though even
that isn't truly limited today.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater)

~~~
mikejb
Imprisonment isn't the only limiting factor in free speech. Direct or indirect
financial impact works well too (e.g. you'll miss your flight because we deem
your opinion suspicious and have to investigate you).

