Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Europeans have a 'right to be forgotten' online. Should Canadians? (cbc.ca)
68 points by alexeyindeev 20 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 104 comments



I'm surprised everyone has such black and white views on this. Some things are in the public's interest to record permanently. Some aren't. Laws that respect that distinction are great.

Recording everything forever is good in the same way that a total lack of privacy is good. Many things should be transparent, and they should be recorded. But there's room for nuance.


Right to be forgotten actually clearly stipulates those things. Information that's "of the public interest" cannot be forgotten under RTBF, for instance. It clearly defines the reasons people should be able to have their information forgotten, such as it being false, very out of date, private, etc.

Unfortunately, right to be forgotten has a huge weak point: It relies on the party forgetting (often Google or Bing) to decide whether or not RTBF applies, rather than a neutral party such as a court. Criticisms of RTBF have largely surrounded examples where the decisionmaking was faulty, and unfortunately, the entities making the decisions would very much like the legislation to fail.

I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company.


> I would far rather RTBF requests be reviewed and approved or rejected by a government office, not a search engine company.

Wouldn't that mean politicians and their cronies can more easily scrub their own histories? Government holding the keys to approve/reject RTBF means it will be biased in favor of self-serving government-related RTBF requests


Not necessarily. Governments tend to have pretty decent records and processes of their own. Note all of the difficulties Trump has trying to just make the US government do whatever the heck he feels like on any given day.

And the biggest part about these decisions being handled by government is that there would be accountability, records, and appeals, all of which you really don't have when a corporation is making the decision.


What about my right to remember?? What right does anyone else have to demand that you forget something? Do they have more say about your body than you yourself? If so, you are a slave.

When tech merges with brains will they demand intrusion to delete what they don't want you to remember?


You are arguing against an oversimplified slogan. The actual ruling is about the right for your public information to not be indexed and publicized.


You have as much rights over 'your' public info as everyone else. You can't dictate to others what to do with it without violating their rights. Therefore, people should learn to think before they act instead of complaining when their acts become public and try to take it down. Edward Snowden has a nice personal bit on this in his new book.


Well, you can and it is being done? I have no problem with this whatsoever, not everything needs to be online.


You can still remember -- you're just restricted from publishing or storing insecurely. Privacy effectively means the right to be left alone.


So am I restricted to tell you what I know about someone?


Under specific circumstances, yeah.


Wouldn't that seem to violate the idea of freedom of speech? What if someone running for public office requests that I "forget" and not share what I know about some bad things they did in the past?


Perhaps it would, but there are plenty of other restrictions on freedom of speech. And this particular law does not apply to news media etc, as far as I understand - just search engines and similar databases.


Sure, of course there are and should be reasonable restrictions (shouting fire in a crowded theater causing immediate danger, for example). But is this a restriction that society should accept? How could you expect to have a functioning democracy if a politician could make people "forget" to stop them from sharing any inconvenient facts about the politician's past actions?

And perhaps I want to make a list of sources where you can search for information about politicians to hold them accountable. If it's not censorship for them to be able to stop me from linking to true things they don't want people to see about them, then what is?


This law has been used to disappear search results from newspaper site search engines.

If it can't be found by anyone, isn't that about the same as deleting it?


Europeans don't necessarily have "freedom of speech". Not in the same ways Americans see it.


Europeans overestimate the benevolence of their governing bodies. Things that limit freedoms of people are the same as things that empower government


The way I see it, this European law is already quite dangerous and will become more so as tech merges with our brains. People might wake up one day having 'forgotten,' for example that Trump grabbed someone by the pussy, because some court decided so. Similar to how users saw copies of the book 1984 disappear from their Kindles not long ago because Amazon felt like it.


If these specific circumstances are NDAs, classified government information and such, that is completely okay because they require a knowingly signed contract violation of which leads to fines and charges. The problem with RTBF is that there's no such contract, or rather it's implicit.


Unless you store it on servers in Asia or the US.

That's kind of the ginormous loophole in the whole RTBF issue. If you can't compel anyone in the US or Asia to remove anything, then you're pretty much a$$ out.


I don't see such limitations as a bad thing. EU has made it clear -- you don't want to be on board -- fine, it's unenforceable. Just don't expect to be able to make a commerical presense in the largest trading bloc in the world.

This is acceptable/ignorable to little business across the world while giant corporations like Facebook or Google can't ignore it.


Please. No one is literally requiring you to stop remembering things. It’s about scrubbing sensitive information from certain public databases. There are all sorts of other limits on what type of information you are allowed to publish in what circumstances, and none of it applies to your actual memories.


Come on now, if you "remembered" anyway, surely you'd have nothing against the information being removed from an index?

This is more about the right not to have everything you ever did tattooed on your forehead.


> When tech merges with brains will they demand intrusion to delete what they don't want you to remember?

Yes, but only if it is possible to index/search/dump the contents of people's brains. In that case we are walking video cameras violating people's privacy everywhere we go, and it is only logical that we should mandate people get their brains wiped of privacy infringing information.

How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public? That is a gross violation of your privacy and illegal theft of your data. Wouldn't you want that person's brain to be wiped of information they have on you to protect your rights?


> and illegal theft of your data

People are free to hide information or to take steps to obscure it, but I do not believe that anyone can own a fact.

Even if we were broadly in agreement that Right to Be Forgotten was a good idea, you still would not be able to own a fact. We sometimes create exceptions to people's right to share data and grant individuals/companies temporary monopolies over certain kinds of information -- the best example of this is IP law.

However, even someone who owns a copyright can't morally claim that they literally own the information. The state has given them a temporary monopoly in the interest of promoting public good, but there is no intrinsic moral right to IP that they can claim they have. Laws of this nature are a restriction of rights that we tolerate because of potential social benefits.

The system you are proposing goes far beyond the current Right to Be Forgotten.

> How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public?

People can already do that. They can go post on blogs or Twitter that they saw you do something. We already have a mechanism for indexing, searching, and dumping the contents of brains: fingers and a computer keyboard.

Right to Be Forgotten is controversial, but what you propose is much stricter. If Right to Be Forgotten tried to essentially make knowledge forbidden -- to make it illegal to write down your memories or post them online -- it wouldn't just be controversial; practically no one would support it.


> How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public?

That sounds like a partial definition of journalism


> How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public?

You mean like PIs?

> That is a gross violation of your privacy and illegal theft of your data.

Most people don't like it, but it's certainly not illegal.


> You mean like PIs?

Yes, but they have a government-approved license to do so, normal citizens do not. Random civilians aren't allowed to just PI people.

In terms of privacy rights, it would be for the best if people had mandatory implants inserted at birth that automatically prevented brains from recording things about other people in public that haven't consented to your recording. I'm thinking something like White Christmas (Black Mirror) where the default is that strangers that haven't opted in are fuzzed out visually and audibly. This would be a huge win for privacy rights.


> Yes, but they have a government-approved license to do so, normal citizens do not.

I mean, so do hair dressers. That doesn't stop people from cutting their friend's hair. You just can't charge for it.

> Random civilians aren't allowed to just PI people.

In the US, it is legal to video record anyone where they don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (audio recording laws vary much more by State). At a minimum this includes everywhere most people would consider "in public".

> it would be for the best if people had mandatory implants inserted at birth that automatically prevented brains from recording things about other people in public that haven't consented to your recording.

There is really nothing I can add to your statement.

I currently believe very few people would agree with you, but I could be incorrect in that belief.


My point is that there is absolutely no difference between:

- cameras that observe your every move and sell off facial recognition and other data to third parties

- brain indexing/dumping tech that turns people into living cameras that are capable of doing the above.

Thus, if we decide that it is illegal to automatically collect information on people using computers, it shouldn't matter if the computer is electronic or biological in nature, it's a violation of the law either way. If companies aren't allowed to store PII about people without their consent, neither should indexable brains be able to store PII about people without their consent. It's quite simple.


But... isn't the entire point of White Christmas that this technology has horrifying social consequences?

Maybe I'm out of the loop, but do people really look at Black Mirror episodes and walk away thinking, "that might be a really good idea."?


> do people really look at Black Mirror episodes and walk away thinking, "that might be a really good idea."?

Apparently at least one person did.


> But... isn't the entire point of White Christmas that this technology has horrifying social consequences?

Yes, and the point of my commentary is that privacy zealotry itself has horrifying social consequences when taken to its logical conclusions


You don't need a government approved license to wait outside places where you know celebrities will show up and take pictures of them to sell.


>In that case we are walking video cameras violating people's privacy everywhere we go

This is actually not true in the US. So people should be careful and understand their rights.

In the US, the government affords us no expectation of privacy when we are in public. As soon as you step out of the hotel room you and your mistress went to at lunch, it's completely legal for a private investigator to snap photos or record video of you.

Basically, when you're out in public in the US, you have no right to privacy. So when people have amazon rings, or google glasses, or brain interfaces that record everything while they're in public, all that information is fair game for the authorities in any court action.


Business idea: Privacy zones. No photography, no video-recording, no audio-recording. In fact, maybe some venues would even ban phones (like a SCIF!).

And, facial ID scanning at the door to ban repeat offenders.

For sex and swinger clubs this would be ideal. Keeps the privacy of the inside intact.


>How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public

I wouldn't like it but I wouldn't want it to be illegal either.


>> How would you like it if people sold information about you based on what they saw and heard you do in public? That is a gross violation of your privacy and illegal theft of your data. Wouldn't you want that person's brain to be wiped of information they have on you to protect your rights?

It definitely is not a violation of your privacy and it is not illegal theft of data either.


Ok, so can I install facial recognition software in my store and have it observe your every move and sell what I observe to third parties? That's the same exact thing.


Umvi: Is there privacy in a public space? If you do something in public, how is that private? You expect to silence people about something you did in public?


I really hate the 'right to be forgotten'... it infringes on other people's 'right to remember'

I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.


>I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.

I previously asked[0] how EU would treat a convicted rapist such as (American) Brock Turner. The reply by commenter IAmEveryone says the law would prohibit the victim from writing about it. (If the scenario is not clear, a victim's blogpost is not a search index and yet it would still be prohibited.)

Since my April 2018 comment, that hypothetical scenario has been made more concrete when the victim later revealed herself as Chanel Miller on September 2019. She's been fervent in sharing her story (her book) in media outlets including websites.

I don't know of any reliable surveys but I'm guessing the majority of Europeans would favor prohibiting her from sharing her story (RTBF) to protect Brock Turner, but the majority of Americans would not.

(I'm sure there's a similar notorious crime & victim in Europe analogous to USA's Brock Turner but I don't have an example.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776734


In such specific situation, EU law is quite clear and right to be forgotten does not apply. Since its in public interest.

It would only apply in case it was later found that rapist was framed and then exonerated. In such case he could claim right to be forgotten, to get all of old false articles removed. Of course people try to abuse this, just like everything else (like using american DMCA to kill videos, articles they don't like)


No EU law is stopping you.

But if you write an article about someone, that contain outdated or false information, you can use right to be forgotten, to at least remove it from search indexes.

Article is still accessible, you can still link it, on HN or reddit or wikipedia, you just wont find it on google search results.


What makes information 'outdated'?


Imagine if Jeffrey Epstein had access to a legal mechanism which enabled him to attempt scrubbing of news/article/forum references of him from the web, beyond just his narrow legal conviction.

Chances are he would still be banging 12 year olds today and Bill Clinton would be smiling ear to ear. (JK obviously on that last one, but my below point will alleviate your suspicions.)

You may not like some speech, namely against you. I may not like certain speech either. But to establish this kind of legal precedent is foolish. What is next, prior restraint with regards to anyone mentioned in an article? I'm sure Big Daddy Donnie Trump would love that one lol.

Free speech is messy as fuck. Look at this "fake news" stuff for the past 3 years. Is it really fake? Debatable. Is it news? In most cases, yes.

Legitimate question I pose: Does free speech extend to deep fakes? (Finally those believing in the Clintons being child sacrificing cultists can be proven true!) This has the potential to get real messy real fast. Hopefully someone with a IEEE/DARPA-level big brain figures out a way to validate videos etc.


It's a ridiculous law that will have to change once deepfakes become more prevalent. Some type of real identity on the web I believe will need to take hold.

The Internet is a public forum would do and say the same things in public you do online?


> I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.

Europe right to be forgotten only applies to publicly indexed searches, not the content - according to the top court

Nothing you said seems to be the reality that exists

So just bookmark a page and revisit it later, the tools have existed since the 90s


That's not true, just yesterday there was trending article[1] about journalist who was forced to take down the article.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308


The use has broadened as member states interpret it differently

The EU top court has been consistent that only de-referencing needs to occur


So I can write about it, but I can't help anyone find it to read?

I am not saying I have the right to a personal diary, I am saying I should have the right to tell my story to whoever I want, and to share it however widely I want, and to help other people find what I have to say however I want.


You still have that right, stop making up arm chair legalese. Your Search Engine Optimization is supposed to fail within the EU. Telling people in person, telling people in group chats, telling people anywhere you want is fine.

According to the top court, the different service indexing all that stuff, within the EU, has to de-reference.


You can call it 'arm chair legalese', but there is a sister comment that has an example of someone being forced to take down an article they wrote.

And forcing search engines to remove the content is certainly, in my opinion, infringing on my right to share my story.


Yeah thats my response under that comment too


But if there were more people like Kim Peek who could recall anything they read, like a walking, talking, search engine, should they be muzzled online?


If what they say breaks a law yes. For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. This is a classic instance where right to be forgotten is used.


>For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime.

But in that case, wouldn't a news website that provides its archives of old crime stories for the public to read be guilty of that offence? If certain information is illegal to be disseminated, why isn't its actual source held liable or otherwise subject to takedown?


If it's already illegal, then I don't see how a right to be forgotten changes anything in that case.


It means the search engines can't stick their fingers in their ears and ignore real people's legitimate needs to put their past mistakes behind them.


What about people's legitimate need to share the wrongs that people have done to them? Or people's legitimate need to know someone's history?

Imagine you meet someone on a dating site, and they assault you on your date. They serve their time, and now have a 'right to be forgotten'.

Do future potential dates not get to know that their date that night has been convicted of assault against someone else, also on a first date? Am I not allowed to warn those people?


Once the crime is spent no.


That makes no sense. If it was already illegal to publish that information then they already weren't allowed to do that. Maybe this law has harsher penalties but, generally speaking, making something double-illegal isn't meaningful.


This is so bizarre to me. So lets say I am assaulted, and that person serves time and then is freed. After a certain period of time, I am no longer allowed to write about my experience online? I am not allowed to warn people, "hey, this guy assaulted me 10 years ago!".

Now, suppose he was never convicted. Am I allowed to write about my experience now?


Some* crimes anyway.


Any sentence under threshold will become spent. Some crimes will still show on DBS checks.


Genuine question: Who benefits when everything we ever do, say, etc. is permanently recorded on a grand, systemtic level?


Who benefits if we legally create the ability to delete history?


criminals and politicians, mainly


Except it doesn’t apply to them


I think of this as something similar to the ability to expunge court records. It allows people to move on from their mistakes. Of course as everything it can be abused.


People victim of the internet, because they did something bad(or rumor about). Then shitty "news" pop about it, the victim loose his job, and can't get another one because any other recruiter will type "FirstName Last name" on Google and find article about the rumor.


The internet is not, nor was it ever, intended to provide the world a canonical and immutable record of "history." To claim that deleting content from the internet is tantamount to "deleting history" is absurd.

It's always been legal for a search engine or a website to unpublish or remove content. The only thing the right to be forgotten does is establish that a person has some form of ownership over content that's published about them, and the right to have it removed in some cases.


The internet is effectively history. Real history started with the internet. So deleting something from the internet is deleting history.


If you look closely you'll see that your comment doesn't actually contradict or disprove mine. That we as a civilization decided to move the entirety of our cultural output to the house of cards that is the internet is orthogonal to its nature and purpose.

You don't get to arbitrarily decide that now everything on the internet has to be immutable and that no one should have the right to ever delete anything from their servers because "history," or that all personally identifiable information has to be preserved just in case the mobs want to doxx someone in the future.

Also:

>Real history started with the internet.

What does this even mean?


I'm not saying that it should be illegal to delete anything you want. What I'm saying is that doing so is tantamount to deleting history.

It doesn't matter what was the initial purpose of the internet. What matters is what it has become. The internet is a worldwide (and potentially interplanetary) interconnected public place. You can restrict information all you want but the reality is such that if something went public it's public forever. Every piece of information will be preserved somewhere in the network for as long as the internet exists. It's the reality we leave in.

> What does this even mean?

All of history before the internet is fuzzy. It was easily rewritten by anyone who controlled narrative and sources of information so the actual events or different view points are lost to the history. And as you dig farther into history the fuzzier it becomes. As I said above as long as the internet exists we can obtain different views on events and decide what is most likely happend, what was the reason it happend the way it did, etc. The internet gave us much more different sources of information to preserve history. That's why I said the real history begun with the mass adoption of the internet.



This forum itself is a great example of who is benefited.


> Fearing a court could potentially order "politically or religiously sensitive material" be removed, Gratton says she's "not a big fan of the right to be forgotten."

What is religiously sensitive material?


Scientology sacred texts.


The reason I don't like 'right to be forgotten' laws because it feels like it's using the law as a blunt instrument to solve a problem that is cultural in nature.

The reason such a law is required is often stated as "What if I, a changed person, am still haunted by something I did 20 years ago?" which to me seems more of a problem with our culture failing to adapt to new technologies. The world changed too rapidly and the culture is too emotion-driven these days, making 'right to be forgotten' laws seem necessary when the problem should, ideally, be solved by education.

I don't have the time right now to go into in depth about my thoughts, but I think there needs to be a distinction between 'right to be forgotten' as a cultural value and 'right to be forgotten' as law, the same way there's a distinction between 'freedom of speech' as a value ("I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it") and 'freedom of speech' as law as in the First Amendment. I'm not entirely sure where the line should be drawn, though, that is up for discussion.

My thoughts on the matter can be summed up as follows: Blocking some speech from your private website or publishing old racist tweets on your private website should fall in the same category (roughly) as eating an entire birthday cake: Something that shouldn't be illegal but something that should not be seen as good, people who do it should be made aware that what they're doing is not good but that it is their right to do so.

The recent controversy about Carson King (the viral Busch Light man) and his old racist tweets and the public reaction to all that come to mind as an example.


I don't think it's a cultural thing, simply because across time when ever you wanted someone to be remembered, or their actions, you would still do it no matter the medium - word of mouth, paper, stone.

The problem is bound to the internet medium: how information is spread, indexed and stored, while being cheap - so cheap we can almost claim it's free.

It's not a matter of one being a changed person or not. It's simply your right to not have your information indexed, with no intrinsic value attached to it.

People wouldn't be featured on an old mass media like newspaper unless such person was "news-worthy" in the eyes of journalists that had to a code of conduct.

The internet has no morals or code of conduct.


I was recently browsing the terms and agreements of a Swiss online merchant and stumbled upon this,

'Swiss law requires us to archive business data for 10+ years. This means that we do not have the right to "forget" you.' [1]

It's unclear to me how Europeans have a right to be forgotten given the above.

[1] https://www.swissmicros.com/terms.php


Switzerland isn’t part of the EU. They are free to have laws that conflict with the EU’s laws.


Ah, of course. And the GDPR section on their site is probably for their EU customers.


This is why laws have exceptions, e.g. one has the right to require that information about oneself be deleted, unless there is another law that requires the retention of the information.


This is still so easy to circumvent.

If it is purely by domain, switch away from google.ca and use google.com to get the results you need.

If it uses geolocation of any kind, use a VPN that allows you to switch between endpoints, and use an endpoint in the States to bring up Canadian information.

In the end, this is nothing more than privacy theatre, in that these changes are only cosmetic and skin-deep.

Granted, I am of the firm opinion that all data is sacrosanct, and that the only thing that should be scrubbable from the Internet is misinformation that has been _proven_ to be demonstrably false by a court of law. Things like prior convictions should not be admissible unless you were later cleared of all charges and the convictions are clearly not in the public’s interest.


People keep trying to force the internet to follow country borders but they don't understand it just doesn't work that way. It's kinda like when your vegetarian neighbours keep complaining about BBQ smells wafting over to their property: the wind doesn't know or care about your property lines.

I don't think any information should be removed/removable from the internet, as long as there is demand for it. Users need to be a bit more savvy for expecting and identifying misinformation though.


Should anybody? This could be used to remove accountability, and certainly will.


I was thinking about the right to be forgotten just the other day. It reminds me of the line "democracy is the worst form of government, except from all of the others which we've tried".

Imagine a young person who gets wrapped up in some illegal activity. 30 years later settled down with a wife and kids he goes for a job interview and the person across the desk happens to have googled his name. That to me doesn't feel fair, people should have the ability to avoid their past haunting them forever.

Pre-internet the problem was naturally solved. The interviewer could have dug back through all of the local newspapers and happened upon an article but that's incredibly unlikely. Maybe if he was running for public office it might be uncovered.

The other side is that politicians and millionaires can use it to hide their dirty secrets. Nothing is perfect though so maybe that is the price we pay.


The question is if you should defend the rights of the past offenders or current potential victim. Sure, there might be repercussions for past conduct, but at the end just one person is responsible for it. On the other hand you have potential victims who can't protect themselves by doing background check on potential perpetrator. If you prevent the victim from taking reasonable precautions, aren't you at least a little bit complicit?


"Potential victim" sounds a lot like precrime in Minority Report.

Either people are once a criminal, always a criminal and should be permanently extricated from society; or people have the ability to grow and deserve a second chance at a normal life.

I believe in the latter, as does the justice system that lets people go after their time is served (barring sex offender registries, at least). And I understand that yes, sometimes, we get it wrong and a person reoffends. Life is messy and sometimes unfair, but we have to strike a balance and take some risk sometimes.

I further believe that if a person is able to put their criminality behind them, the recidivism rate will drop. If you deny them gainful employment because Google decided a news article from 20 years ago is the most relevant thing about a person, which biases all future potential employers against recruiting him, then I believe they will have far less to lose and are more likely, right or wrong, to take upon them the mindset that, "if you're going to treat me like a criminal, then I am going to act like one!"


So you don't think a person deciding whether to go on a date with someone deserves to know they were convicted of rape 15 years ago?

> Life is messy and sometimes unfair, but we have to strike a balance and take some risk sometimes.

I don't think we should choose what risks someone else has to take. If someone has a rule 'I will never, ever, date anyone who has ever raped anyone', who are we to tell them, "Nope, sorry..... you don't get to have that rule for yourself.... we have decided for you"


> or people have the ability to grow and deserve a second chance at a normal life.

Yes, and I should have the ability to judge wether or not they've grown and changed, but I can't do that if I'm not even aware they committed crimes in the past.


What about someone who was raped wanting to have the details of that rape de-indexed?


Honestly I'm not sure. If you don't allow someone the opportunity to reform aren't you strong arming then into continuing their criminal behaviour?


I'm not denying ability to reform to anyone, they just will have to forthcoming about their past and persuade the other party that they have changed and to give them a chance. Definitely better than for instance giving child molester chance to molest another child, defrauder to defraud another victim and so on.


I think child molestation and other sexual offences are normally dealt with via alternative means. In the UK there is a sex offenders register as well as background checks for people working with children etc.


Like a social credit score?


Are you trolling? How is erasing past related to social credit score?


Or you could stop trying to be in control of everything.


Lot's of things can be used for bad things like cars and knives. There are checks in place so information that is important for society is not forgotten.


> There are checks in place so information that is important for society is not forgotten.

Could you expound on these checks?


>Could you expound on these checks?

First tell me where you draw the line? Like X can be forgotten but not Y and I refer at regular people not persons with public interest.


I feel that the right to be forgotten is valid because people are irrational and will be prejudiced against a person regardless of how different the current reality is. This would make me want to put a time limit (like you have to wait 10 years or something) rather than allow current/relevant information to be suppressed.

I also feel that people don't get to pick and choose. If you want to be forgotten then everything should be forgotten, not just the stuff you don't like.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: