
‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Should Apply Worldwide, E.U. Panel Says - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/technology/right-to-be-forgotten-should-be-extended-beyond-europe-eu-panel-says.html?ref=technology&_r=0
======
wyager
The idea of a "right" to compel other people to destroy information is
comically absurd.

Obviously, 99% of the people who might abuse such a "right" are PR groups
working for corrupt politicians and corporations; there's no way this is going
to be useful for the average person.

This is also a huge pain in the ass technically. It is simply very hard for
most sites to enforce arbitrary censorship, and we know how wonderful DMCA
takedown requests have been. At least with DMCA requests and more common
censorship laws (against proscribed political beliefs, pornography, etc.)
there's a fairly limited scope of things that site operators have to worry
about.

And this _is_ censorship; that much is clear. You are forbidden from speaking
about people who have the wherewithal to leverage this "right". These aren't
even anti-slander laws; under the "right to be forgotten", you are forbidden
from making even _perfectly true_ statements about someone.

~~~
freshflowers
This entire argument is pure FUD.

It doesn't apply to politicians, who have chosen to be public figures, and it
doesn't apply to corporations because they aren't people.

And nothing is forbidden. The right to be forgotten is opt-out. You can
publish anything you like, and unlike DMCA you can let any dispute go all the
way up the legal chain.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with censorship.

~~~
wyager
>It doesn't apply to politicians

"I'm not a politician! I'm just a humble police commissioner."

> it doesn't apply to corporations

"I'm not a corporation! I'm just a humble executive."

>And nothing is forbidden. The right to be forgotten is opt-out.

What is this supposed to mean? This is clearly not the case. Websites cannot
opt-out of following these requests.

>unlike DMCA you can let any dispute go all the way up the legal chain.

Oh great, so I get some semblance of due process before being censored?

>It has absolutely nothing at all to do with censorship.

Explain to me how preventing me from saying true things about certain people
is not censorship.

------
sailfast
Right to be forgotten, to me, implies a right to rewrite history. If we extend
this to other media - "Right to remove all mentions of my name from indexes in
published books" does this make any sense at all? If anything, you already
have the right to solicit a retraction and or takedown to fix the problem.

You're not asking for the source material to be removed from the web root
content, because that would be crazy and a violation of rights, so you're just
asking for the revealing of its existence to be removed?

Similar to requests from users to "change the way that thing looks on the
chart", the reason why it looks that way is because the data is there. Either
change the data, or live with the picture it presents. Sure, you can blame the
graph for its approach to displaying the data, but removal is a clear half-
measure. When it's clear a full measure fix is a terrible idea, the half-
measure is probably also at least half as terrible, or maybe / .5 as terrible
depending on which "law" you use.

------
Animats
There are a lot of big-name crooks who would like to rewrite history. I see
this regularly on Wikipedia's conflict of interest notice board. In the last
year, four different rich guys with old felony convictions have paid editors
trying to make their criminal history go away. In each case, they've failed on
Wikipedia.

With a "right to be forgotten", they could litigate over that. Even if they
had a weak case, it could become dangerous to refer to the criminal history of
anyone with money. There's already been one lawsuit on Wikipedia, alleging
defamation for going over someone's past rather than merely echoing what came
out of their PR firm. I was one of the people listed in the lawsuit, but the
plaintiff backed down after a threat of a countersuit.

------
freshflowers
The deliberate misrepresentation and/or willful ignorance about what the
"right to be forgotten" means is pathetic. I really expect better from HN,
regardless of whether people agree with it or not.

Just some points:

\- Politicians, public figures, celebrities and any kind of information that
is the public or historic interest does not fall under the right to be
forgotten.

\- Corporations, governments etcetera do not fall under the right to be
forgotten.

\- There is no DMCA-like process. This notion is the result of Google's
disinformation campaign and the deliberately flawed process Google
implemented, like a child throwing a tantrum.

\- This has nothing to do with censorship. There is nothing pre-emptive about
it. Individuals have to actively make each and every request. Any request for
removal can be taken all the way up the legal chain.

Yes, there is a chilling effect risk in the implementation of the right to be
forgotten. Possibly to the point where the right itself needs a much clearer
definition. Possibly even to the point where the conclusion is that it is
impossible to implement without harmful side effects that outweigh the
benefits.

Those are valid discussions. But so far I've seen very little of that
discussion on HN, just a lot of FUD and outright BS.

~~~
Oletros
> \- Politicians, public figures, celebrities and any kind of information that
> is the public or historic interest does not fall under the right to be
> forgotten.

I have read those claims some times, can you please direct me to were in the
law is said this?

------
liotier
‘Censorship’ Should Apply Worldwide, E.U. Panel Says

~~~
freshflowers
Throwing the word 'censorship' around in civil rights issues is as cheap and
meaningless as using terrorism and child abuse as an excuse for privacy
violations.

~~~
droope
Sometimes films get adapted in order to be suitable for younger audiences, and
that is called censorship because that is the meaning of the word.

[http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_genhist_censorship.cf...](http://www.pictureshowman.com/articles_genhist_censorship.cfm)

In New Zealand, the law that "enforces" this is called the "censorship" law.

[http://www.censor.org.nz/classification-law/censorship-
law-i...](http://www.censor.org.nz/classification-law/censorship-law-in-
nz.html)

------
Reebles
I understand the need for _something_ like this. The right to delete all
Google+, Facebook, and ad tracker network stored data etc. seems reasonable.
The right to limit search engine discoverability of 3rd party published
information seems to be a step too far. I'm not sure where you draw the line,
but there does seem to at least be a line somewhere in there.

------
EGreg
Is there any version of this "right" that would actually be sensible? I mean
many countries do provide some recourse if you prove libelous statements were
published. So the machinery exists in some form, and hasn't led to a lot of
abuse. Libel, though, requires proving that the statements are false.

~~~
benologist
By limiting it to libel you are defeating the purpose of the right to be
forgotten.

If you are charged with something and found innocent you should have the right
to not be forever associated with it in search results for your name.

If you are the victim of something you should be able to move on without every
potential employer and partner building an image skewed by that moment.

~~~
sailfast
Just because you remove it from Google doesn't mean it didn't happen. Removing
it from Google also doesn't result in your employer having an open mind about
your past history. Making it easier to find something does not mean it won't
be found.

If you're a defendant in a case and proven innocent - that's on the record. If
you're a victim of something and your name has been released to the public -
also on the record. If it's a public record I support all efforts to make that
data as easily accessible as possible. Preventing public discovery of an
existing record does no one a service.

~~~
chc
The fact that that exercise of the "right to be forgotten" won't completely
protect you from facts about the past is a red herring. Security is almost
never perfect. Security is mostly about making something generally impractical
to do. This is similar — a dedicated snoop will probably be able to find the
dirt, but it won't be readily apparent to everyone who types your name into
the world's most typed-into box.

~~~
sailfast
Totally understand and security by obscurity is definitely possible and
effective, though difficult for media and the internet.

That said, if something is legitimately public, why would we not want to make
it easily accessible "using the world's most typed-into box"? Why would we
prevent someone from developing an effective way to make that data available
to the public? What differentiates something with your name on it from all
other data? (I'm not talking about private data here that you entered or were
promised would be shared in a private context from, say, a profile or payment
information standpoint)

This new "right" seems completely random and out of left field. It doesn't
really have anything to do with privacy. I don't agree that it is a right
because to me, rights make sense across the board. This one only kind of makes
sense in a narrow context and when applied broadly doesn't work at all, and
infringes on all the others.

~~~
benologist
It's a _massive_ privacy issue - you can change in very personal, significant
ways without Google etc updating the person they present you as being - your
political beliefs, your gender and sexuality, controversial opinions etc.
There are many contexts where these and outdated versions of you shouldn't be
the most-available, most-presented information about you.

------
penprog
I think this is good, I think people should be able to delete their online
presence when they turn 18. The way the internet is now, it's too easy to
screw up your own life.

~~~
ominous
I can't agree with this. I see erasing bits of the internet that don't belong
to you the same way I'd see asking for people to forget memories.

~~~
freshflowers
The essence of privacy in the European context is that _data about you belongs
to you_ , unless it's in the greater public interest.

Who do you think it belongs to?

~~~
sailfast
The data about you should belong to the person or thing collecting the data
unless otherwise specified in an agreement of some sort (say, for instance,
self-nominated data shall be owned by the user that input the data)

For example: you walk down the street and I see you (because you were there
and you exist) and my memory of you being there might be recounted in a blog
at some point. That blog might get indexed on Google.

Who owns that data about you? I would argue the person that made the
observation owns it - the fact that you acted to walk down a street does not
mean you get to control my recollection of that event, or the fact that it
happened.

------
thrush
Slightly related, but what are thoughts on using internet harassment for
extortion purposes or personal attacks. In many ways, the technology and
policies we'd use to prevent this harassment could be frightfully similar to
technology that allows censorship.

Interesting related article: [http://www.troyhunt.com/2014/11/ransom-is-new-
black-increasi...](http://www.troyhunt.com/2014/11/ransom-is-new-black-
increasing-trend-of.html)

------
smm2000
I am waiting for Tuvalu to issue law saying that for $100 you have right to
delete any information from Google worldwide.

------
cheepin
I think I speak for America and the rest of the world when I say that the EU
should stop trying to boss around foreign companies. This was ridiculous the
first time when it only applied to EU, but now it's pure insanity.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I think I speak for America and the rest of the world when I say

There is literally nothing that could follow this beginning and not be absurd,
including (but not limited to) what actually follows it in your post.

~~~
vixen99
Well I think there is: it's :"the EU should stop trying to boss around foreign
companies". Perhaps you can explain why that is absurd because it's prefaced
by an (agreed) absurdity?

~~~
potatolicious
All international laws, treaties, and agreements are "bossing around foreign
[people|companies]"

We have extradition treaties, peace treaties, copyright treaties, trade
agreements, etc etc, all of which present restrictions on what private
individuals and corporations can and cannot do.

The notion that countries will seek to gain international adherence to its
desired rules is anything but absurd. The only absurdity here is what's
actually being proposed - so let's talk about that, instead of some notion
that countries should not pursue international cooperation.

There's also a bit of hypocrisy when claiming to "speak for America",
considering this is a country that has literally gone to war in order to "boss
around foreign [people|companies]" \- I'm not even talking about Iraq, look up
the sordid history of the United Fruit Company and its relationship to Latin
American interventionism.

~~~
j4meserljoness
>The notion that countries will seek to gain international adherence to its
desired rules is anything but absurd

Strongly disagree. Sovereignty exists so that my rules don't apply to you.

------
WildUtah
In all the discussion about Silicon Valley and why no place else has been able
to have quite so much success in high tech, subtle cultural issues can be
underemphasized because they aren't easily quantified. This attitude toward
freedom of speech and data in the EU is one reason why startups don't prosper
as well there.

For a society to allow and even encourage independent people to create new
ways to collaborate with data is risky to existing powers. Most societies
place restrictions on who can know or say things and then impose severe
consequences on the people about whom those things are said. Sometimes the
restrictions and consequences are informal. There may be a strong norm against
sharing data or gossiping or spying or publishing. There may be a strong sense
of reputation or face or a presumption that bad things said about you make you
a bad person and unemployable.

The EU is a place where people have lived with the idea that central
authorities can tell individuals what to say or not say for a long time. The
large news and data institutions and churches have strong links to the state
and individuals are not expected to be able to make choices about information
for themselves. Political parties are routinely banned and prosecuted solely
for disagreeing with ruling parties; elected officials have been prosecuted
and jailed in France and the Netherlands in this decade merely for being
leaders of the minority parties in their national and EU legislatures. [0] A
certain confidence that anything officially published is endorsed by powerful
people lingers weakly as a result. People don't like small companies,
startups, individuals controlling data as a result.

China and Japan are the same, though each in its own way, of course, just as
each European culture is different.

But America is an outlier. We trust our government and newspapers less. We
expect authorities' pronouncements to have less effect on our prospects and
reputations. We share data freely and expect that people can gossip about us
freely with limited consequences. We even expect a certain amount of lying to
go on without being prohibited, though it upsets us more because we've
developed stronger norms against it than nations where authorities are
expected to have the power routinely to deceive the people like the EU.

And in tech, where information is everything, that cultural approbation for
data is deeply though subtly influential. It's one of the many things that
make US startups and especially Silicon Valley ones more successful.

Which isn't to day that this EU decision is a bad thing for startups. It's bad
for Google, but that's not all startups. It creates an opening for an American
company to provide a search engine that fills in Google's EU gaps. EU
companies might be able to find ways to exploit it, too.

It does reflect one of the cultural advantages of Silicon Valley, though.
Along with the esteem for entrepreneurs, openness to failure, flexible job
market, and network effects, freedom of speech is a business advantage in
tech.

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Geert_Wilders)

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/marine-le-
pen-i...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/02/marine-le-pen-immunity-
lifted)

~~~
Coding_Cat
//Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

I can not find a source on Marine Le Pen actually being convicted, but Wilders
was not. He was charged, however this only happened after enough _citizens_
pressed charges: initially the public prosecutor declined to do so until they
were forced to do so (Dutch law allows victims to fight the prosecutions
decision to not press charges). It came to a long trial (he was charged for
inciting hate/violence) and the court ruled that he was not guilty, but said
it was on the edge of legality.

Basically, it is (legally) okay to say that the Quran incites hate in people,
or that middle-eastern immigrants hold backwards customs which clash with
Dutch tradition. That is considered part of public discourse. But you are not
allowed to then say "And therefore we need to remove them all, by force if
necessary" as now you are inciting violence.

Furthermore, Wilders was at the time (unfortunately imho) not the leader of a
"minority party" see for example this: [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabinet-
Rutte_I#mediaviewer/Fil...](http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabinet-
Rutte_I#mediaviewer/File:ZetelsRutte-metPVV.svg) It shows the distribution of
seats in the Dutch Parliment. PVV is Wilders' party, 'rest' is the remaining
parties.

------
happyscrappy
This has zero chance and reflects poorly on the EU.

~~~
probably_wrong
Well, it might reflect poorly from the States maybe. I totally agree with the
EU, and I'm willing to guess that so do most Europeans.

I'm pretty sure this question could be used as a reasonably reliable predictor
of nationality.

~~~
happyscrappy
This has zero chance. Zero. Hopefully they are just grandstanding for their
home audience and are not as clueless as they sound.

~~~
probably_wrong
There are two issues here:

1_ the EU trying to convince Google to delete data they are allowed to have
outside the EU. That won't work.

2_ the ruling that Google must make certain data unavailable within the
boundaries of the EU or pay the consequences. Simply stating "we did, buy then
users used the wrong two letters (domain) and accessed it anyway" is a poor
excuse, and I think the EU won't take it.

I can imagine Google blocking results based on IP (like they currently do with
music videos on YouTube) as a reasonable compromise the EU can enforce. It
does not account for proxies, of course, but it's a start.

------
happyscrappy
This is such a great idea that Europeans are flagging it to suppress a
discussion.

