SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google's general counsel has signalled the company intends to fight, hard, against broad interpretations of the European Union's right to be forgotten.
Kent Walker, the company's general counsel and senior veep, put his name to a strongly-worded post on Wednesday, US time. Titled "Defending access to lawful information at Europe's highest court", the post argued that forthcoming cases in the European Court of Justice "represent a serious assault on the public's right to access lawful information."
Walker wrote that French courts' request for a European Court of Justice ruling on personal data collection effectively seeks a regime under which "all mentions of criminality or political affiliation should automatically be purged from search results, without any consideration of public interest."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 17 2017, @12:24PM (19 children)
It may be nice for bad actors and foolish people but it's the epitome of idiocy for a society. Actions should always have consequences and those who are legally prohibited from remembering history are doomed to repeat it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday November 17 2017, @01:01PM (15 children)
Like pissing on the corner of a building should necessary mean that the person is really a sexual offender for his entire life (or sexting at young age or hugging another child). And this is... the opposite of idiocy. </sarcasm> [businessinsider.com.au]
People change, learn and can become better. Beyond the punishment prescribed by the laws of the place, consequences of their stupid actions at one age should not be a deterrent to their change in better in the future.
I'm sorry if this offends your authoritarian vein, but it seems common-sensical to me.
---
Ok, fair warning, this may come as a shock therapy in regards with your understanding of "common sense"
In more liberal countries, the city facilitates you pissing in the street in a civil way [www.google.com] and the only outcry they generate is about equal access to facilities [bbc.com]. Other countries endeavour to do better [bbc.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @01:11PM (1 child)
Giving sex offender status to a public urinator has nothing to do with "the right to be forgotten". That person should just be fined. But it wouldn't be forgotten.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday November 17 2017, @01:29PM
Yes, I know that in US it will not be forgotten. Question is: shouldn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 17 2017, @06:44PM (6 children)
It's ludicrous to brand that a 'sex offense.' Absolute insanity.
The solution is to quit doing that. Nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:11AM (5 children)
Actually, no. It has EVERYTHING to do with the subject at hand. And it's not just an issue of branding minor things as "sex offenses" -- it's things like a newspaper or other media source reporting on a person who was arrested or even questioned for something to do with a sex offense, but there's never any retraction when it's discovered that it was just a "fishing expedition" by the cops or some other complete screw-up or error... maybe a little blurb buried on page 10 if there's an actual trial and acquittal. If it doesn't get that far -- only an arrest, but subsequent discovery that it was unfounded -- what recourse does the person have when the top hit for their name is a completely bogus news story from years ago about a sex offense that never was real?
This kind of crap happens a lot if you expand the list to all crimes -- though even have some vague association with a sex offense charge is likely enough to get summarily rejected by employers, landlords, etc. when they do a cursory internet search for your name. Lots of innocent people are accused. And, as in this thread, lots of guilty people's crimes are exaggerated by the media and/or by law enforcement.
Sorry, but UNTIL you solve ALL those problems (likely impossible), it IS directly on point with the "subject at hand." I'm not saying the "right to be forgotten" as implemented in Europe now is the best way or even a reasonable way to go, but there are a multitude of scenarios where some recourse for dealing with this inaccurate info makes sense given all the levels of imperfect information in our systems and the way they can distort one's reputation unjustly.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:46AM (2 children)
Your solution is to try to protect them from themselves, at the expense of everyone's liberty. Basically the impulse is to wrap the entire world in nerf foam. You can't actually do that, of course, but the trouble is you can come close enough to really screw us up as a species.
That 'solution,' you see, is not a solution at all. It's like pouring gasoline on a, well, a gasoline fire. This impulse to nerf everything and protect everyone from harsh reality is exactly why we have so many stupid people!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:41AM
And often learn not to do those stupid things again.
Are you really arguing that if someone makes a mistake, usually when young and stupid, it should be held over their heads for the rest of their lives?
How is it infringing on your liberty if you don't know I did something stupid 40 years ago and learned from it?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:44PM
Huh? What are you talking about? I gave examples of people who are erroneously arrested and receive media attention for being associated with a crime they had absolutely nothing to do with.
Who did "stupid things" there? The police perhaps. (Perhaps... They could also have made mistakes in good faith too.. It does happen.) So what's your solution in that case? Liberty is certainly an important goal (I agree), but so should be justice. What's your solution: more control of the press to stop undue media attention or force takedowns of articles or...? ANY solution to such an issue is going to involve reduced freedom somewhere if it will lead to a JUST outcome, so it's just a matter of where/how.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:41PM (1 child)
It's even worse if you get involved in the justice system after being acquitted out let go - they treat every Stewart as if it were a conviction, so it's guilty before and despite being proven innocent every time.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:43PM
Fucking autocorrect - * acquitted or let go * they treat every arrest *
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 17 2017, @09:20PM (5 children)
That doesn't even make sense as a sentence but I'll address it as if it did just the same. You are wrong. If you are a voting-age adult and do something fucking stupid, you should have to live with it. Adults do not get do-overs.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @11:11PM (4 children)
Of course, what a fucking authoritarian could say?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 17 2017, @11:52PM (3 children)
I think you need a dictionary.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:49AM (2 children)
Sounds pretty authoritarian saying that an 18 year old who did something stupid should suffer for the rest of their life, 60 years on average.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday November 18 2017, @11:14AM (1 child)
Then you also need a dictionary. There is nothing remotely authoritarian about saying we as the government will not protect you from the consequences of your own actions. Authoritarian would be a government trying to tell the whole Internet not to keep speaking mean truths about someone.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Sunday November 19 2017, @03:43AM
You're parroting #1 to show that the noun applies to you. I'll quote,
your response to the idea that people can change and should have the freedom to change.
What the solution to this idea is, I don't know as ordering Google to change their search results isn't it, but the problem is real, everyone does stupid shit at some point, some are lucky and some aren't.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday November 17 2017, @06:20PM (1 child)
If only we could make the internet technically indelible and universally accessible, we wouldn't be wasting all our time and energy arguing about it.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 17 2017, @09:23PM
No, we'd be arguing on it instead. When we weren't browsing porn or looking at cat videos.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by mmarujo on Tuesday November 21 2017, @09:35AM
Yes there should be consequences. The question is should they be never ending?
If I do something bad, pay a fine / do some time or whatever it is that the Judge orders me to do should I keep paying for my crime until the day that I die?
*That* is what is at stake here.