We have this tweet about them getting a bunch of anti-aircraft missiles (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NF6E5FC...), showing off their new toys (https://twitter.com/grasswire/status/489823087190224897/phot...) and the most important one of the day of the rebel leader (or whoever manages his Vkontakte account) bragging about downing planes before he knew that one was civilian (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...).
The http://grasswire.com users keep finding more and more of these - It seems desirable that we can delete stuff online and have it go away, but sometimes the Streisand effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect) is a great thing.
Sorry, but this is a complete mischaracterization of the right. I've been having the same conversation with Yonatan Zunger on G+, he tried cracking a similar joke there.
It's a flagrantly specious argument.
Compelling public right to know in an international incident, attack on the public, by armed militants operating in defiance of local and international law.
That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request.
Now, ask me about the identities of individuals whose passports are shown on a video linked here, and I might be open to debate (though this raises the question of whether or not RTBF is ceded on death).
If you're interested in an informed discussion of RTBF, I'd strongly recommend Max Huijgen's threads on G+:
"Google's Cynical Manipulation of the Right To Be Forgotten"
"What should fall under the European right to be forgotten and to reverse it: what should fall under the 'right to know'?"
And one more from Yonatan Zunger: "The Right To Be Forgotten: A Question"
That passes your definition of reasonable grounds.
The problem is that there doesn't exist an established "reasonable grounds" in this area, period. There is no legal test as to what is "reasonable." It's left up to the likes of Google to decide what records society keeps on who. And that's absolutely flabberghasting.
Within a month of this "right" being instated, evil people were already using it to cover their tracks, and that's a Fact that cannot be ignored.
Perhaps it cannot be ignored, but what should we do with that fact?
The problem with the line of reasoning is that, if left unqualified, it can be carried as far as justification for totalitarianism.
So, perhaps until a reasonable standard can be established, I wonder if ignoring that fact is our least bad option. If evil people continue to take advantage, then perhaps that would provide the incentive to quickly get us to court-testing, precedent, and the establishment of a standard. And it may be the only approach that errs on the side of rights preservation in general.
The right is not absolute (see below).
Google does not have to make a final decision but may decide on request. It can also pass that decision on to the court. For individuals with limited resources, a request to a search engine is more reasonable than having to litigate every instance. There is no sanction on the search engine for passing on the decision.
Max Huijgen's description from the links above:
A case-by-case assessment is needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life and the interest of the public in having access to that information.
Or if you prefer the EU court's own fact sheet:
"On the “Right to be Forgotten” : Individuals have the right - under certain conditions - to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing (para 93 of the ruling). The court found that in this particular case the interference with a person’s right to data protection could not be justified merely by the economic interest of the search engine. At the same time, the Court explicitly clarified that the right to be forgotten is not absolute but will always need to be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and of the media (para 85 of the ruling). A case-by-case assessment is needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life and the interest of the public in having access to that information. The role the person requesting the deletion plays in public life might also be relevant."
Yes, people were attempting to use the ruling beyond its scope. Google's Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond said: "We think it went too far, and didn't consider adequately the impact on free expression, which is absolutely a human right."
"Only two months in our process is still very much a work in progress. It’s why we incorrectly removed links to some articles last week (they’ve since been reinstated). But the good news is that the ongoing, active debate that’s happening will inform the development of our principles, policies and practices – in particular about how to balance one person’s right to privacy with another’s right to know."
There's a tremendous amount of disinformation on this ruling. Frankly, you're part of it.
Factsheet on the "Right to be Forgotten" ruling (C-131/12)
I don't see Google or any other search engine involved in this situation at all.
Stop conflating things - that someone can post content and remove it of their own volition while Wayback Machine captures it is not germane to the discussion of whether it's ok to be forgotten. Now if the separatist had issued a removal request to WM, that'd be a different story.
> The EU defines ‘data controllers’ as ‘people or bodies that collect and manage personal data.’ (WP)
Are war crimes what 'right to be forgotten' is all about?
Of course not. I think OP is just pointing out that there are pros and cons.
OTOH, if I were leading a technologically sophisticated country to war and had the ability, I might look for ways to make my opponent look bad- say, by posting to internet forums using their hacked accounts- and trust that the internet would not forget.
Wrt. the right [more precisely lack of it] to be forgotten and war crimes : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Non-Applicabi...
A plane would be such an object.
"murdering, mistreating, or deporting civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps" is a war crime.
Passengers of an aircraft traversing an occupied territory could be construed as civilian residents.
"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war..." is a crime against humanity.
I don't know how this could even be considered 'tracks', it's strategic information that should never have been posted in the first place. (Assuming the rebels are running a military operation in hopes of gaining control of territory)
Also, if the information wasn't suppressed it would still be just as popular. Do you really think no one was going to check the Rebel Leaders VK? The event was already international news, and would fill headlines for the next week, there is no way that suppressing the information made it more widely known.
It has more to do with companies keeping their records on you from now until they go bankrupt (and then sell that data off as an asset to appease their creditors).
People are already doing this to gain access to locale restricted content, notably on Youtube. In fact, there are browser based plug-ins to automate this.
There is no 'right to be forgotten', really. It just means that, legally, a potential employer who digs up a youthful indiscretion, or a journalist digging for dirt cannot be up front about what they have found. You will not be able to know or challenge the reasons you have been discriminated against. This will be particularly harmful in cases where the damage to your good name is demonstrably false because you will not be able to confront and disprove it.
Privacy is a big deal, but we also need to combat the memory hole effect. Hopefully a good balance can be struck!
AN-26 shooting, allegedly by rebels, proofs that malaysian boeing was shot by rebels.
By that logic UA did this because it shot down russian civil plane in 2001, admitting it after months.
As it is, who knows? Sites can be hacked, that we know. And we know some parties have continued interest in stirring up trouble in the region.
Was it a false flag operation? Probably not. But if we see a party trying to take advantage of the situation, or escalate conflict over the situation, it will be a bit more suspicious, and that suggestion may be worth considering.
If it was a military error it was a military error. But if it was indeed parties with economic interests destroying human lives in order to court opinion... well that would be despicable and of the lowest order of criminality.
Hell, saying Ukraine did this as false flag seems especially loony - Russia was drawing down it's forces on the border, down to about 1,000 soldiers (down from over 40,000). Why would they intentionally stir the pot when things were going as they needed them to?
Cargo -- no. MA plane -- very much.
Their so-called ATO (in reality, genocide) failed just recently. Some of their troops were surrounded at UA-RU border by rebels, they are desorganised, some are fleeing into Russia even.
At this point Kiev needs something.
You maybe mean posts ostensibly from pro-Russian rebels appearing on the internet?
There are many claims.
Well, almost everything.
Many people (noncombatants) killed in Lugansk from BM-21 "Grad" bombings.
Artillery shooting near UA-RU border, killing two soldiers.
Shooting over cross-border stations while refugees were trying to escape into Russia.
Kiev declared that 'terrorists' (familiar word, isn't it?) are in Lugansk and Donetsk and started shooting over whole population regardless.
That was interesting incident.
There was a peaceful protest, that was attacked by (pro-)Russian militants with guns. Then the crowd started to defend itself, the attackers retreated and barricaded themselves in a wooden building. They were still shooting into the crowd and throwing Molotov's cocktails. The crowd was was mostly unarmed save for it's own Molotov's cocktails.
Barricading inside wooden building and throwing fire around is not especially smart idea. That's how it ended, also.
I think it is best for me to leave this little Intellectual Curiosity Club.
"It is possible that the WM website could have been spoofed somehow to create these records, but it would not be easily done. To do so would either require hacking WM and creating the new records within its system, or spoofing the records by tricking WM into thinking it was accessing Girkin's page when it was actually accessing a third-party site. Both possibilities would be difficult to carry out."
Would it really be that hard?
No, I don't think it would really be that hard for an actor the size of... well, some of the parties involved in this debacle.
The rebels probably accidentally shot the plane down. Most likely explanation. But, if someone tries to make hay with this event however, for example using it in public speeches to justify further military aid, advisers or intervention... I'm going to begin wondering about that.
This can be huge - apparently the ones responsible for the shooting will do everything they can to cover it up.
Will Putin cut his ties off and leave Ukraine to itself or will he start his propaganda machine?
Its a huge loss - people that have nothing to do with this conflict died just because they were in wrong place in wrong time...
Let's not make people causalities until the dust settles at the very least.
honestly, if you're flagging this story, you may as well turn in your human card
edit2 so this has stirred up something since I'm watching my karma flutter up and down like a butterfly's wings.
This isn't just a plane crash, this was an aircraft that was shot down while on a perfectly normal commercial flight between two major international hubs. This could have very serious, long-term global ramifications and every person who comes to HN should be aware it happened.
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports [...]. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
Already in the wayback thread on this, I've discovered a news tracking startup and an in depth discussion for people who take this exact flight and route.
This wasn't a plane passing between Baghdad and Kabul or some similar dangerous route. There's been a couple of other flying related accidents today also. This is the notable one.
If you take a plane frequently (like I expect lots of people here do), you'll probably be interested in this story and the kind of in-depth discussion that only HN can bring to bear on it.
edit Just found out the relative of a person I know was on the plane and is now dead.
Just add "on twitter" to any off topic news item and suddenly it's on topic.
Edit2: and now the title got reverted to the article title, which obscures what's interesting to HN readers. Oh well, inflexible policy in action.
EDIT: Given the poor quality of the discussion, I now regret posting this link. Very little discussion of the Wayback machine and how this is a new and interesting way to collect information, and lots of off-topic stuff on the right to be forgotten or non-wayback-machine-related items about this incident.
No a real human cares about the millions of human beings who die of simple diseases all the time that for starters we could personally donate too and save a few lives.
And for seconds have a positive benefit raising awareness to .
This story is pure voyeurism. We'll have no affect on knowing this stuff especially knowing it first. Which I have no problem with, it is very interesting to see what will happen. I upped it and found links in this thread very interesting.
But no, it's nothing about being a good moral human being.