Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday December 19 2017, @04:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the digital-divide dept.

Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original Pirate Party, now living in Germany, has published four parts so far of series on analog equivalent privacy rights. He plans to have 21 parts in all. The series starts out early on with the point that there is no reason for the offline liberties of our parents to not be carried over into the same online liberties for our children and examines this point from different directions. So far he has posted in detail on the following topics over at Private Internet Access' blog:

Rick will post more over the next few weeks. The current batch of adults and teenagers are likely the last generation to have any choice in the matter. Apathy and ignorance abound and deciding not to decide is still, sadly, a choice.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Tuesday December 19 2017, @04:47AM (15 children)

    by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @04:47AM (#611708)

    I've often wondered what some people are thinking. It used to be, and may still be, that I could go to my local library and find phone books from all around the country.

    What I'd like to know is, in the not too distant past, whether the "right to be forgotten" ever existed, and if so, who went around to the libraries blacking out listings for people who chose to exercise this "right."

    I'm guessing it didn't used to work this way. And these people today who want this right have greatly inflated ideas of the world's interest in anything about them.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday December 19 2017, @04:59AM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @04:59AM (#611713) Journal

    I've often wondered what some people are thinking. It used to be, and may still be, that I could go to my local library and find phone books from all around the country.

    And at least in Germany, you always had the possibility not to be listed in that phone book. However listing in the phone book was opt-out, not opt-in.

    Note however that this is not quite the same as location services of smartphones: Your phone was at a fixed position, independent from where you were. And quite obviously, the phone book also didn't contain your current position, only your address and phone number.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 1) by jrmcferren on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:52PM

      by jrmcferren (5500) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:52PM (#611885) Homepage

      Telephone listings in the US were the same way. With traditional service (VoIP providers don't usually list), you have two opt out options. You can opt out of directory listing only or opt out of directory and directory assistance listing. Historically, some telephone providers also had an option that you could list other people in your house (including your children) in the directory as well for additional convenience (and additional profit for Ma Bell). Oh and remember this was in the days where some towns were still converting to (Rotary) dial service.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:20AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:20AM (#611716) Journal

    And these people today who want this right have greatly inflated ideas of the world's interest in anything about them.

    What a great generalization.</sarcasm>
    The victims of revenge porn [forbes.com] having "inflated ideas of the world's interest in anything about them", right?
    And so are the victims of online defamation [forbes.com]?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by vux984 on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:20AM (7 children)

    by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @05:20AM (#611717)

    'What I'd like to know is, in the not too distant past, whether the "right to be forgotten" ever existed, and if so, who went around to the libraries blacking out listings for people who chose to exercise this "right."'

    Yes, the right existed de facto. You didn't need to go around to libraries blacking out listings, because the simple burden of having to go to a library and sift through 10s of thousands of pages and microfiches by hand meant you were effectively forgotten without anyone having to lift a finger to make it so. Sure anyone willing to travel to the right library and spend a week or two sifting pages could find the info. But nobody did that unless it was really important.

    The fact that you can type a query about anyone years and see all the news articles etc about them from the last 10-20 years 2 seconds later means that every co-worker, potential relationship, potential employer, neighbor, and bored acquaintance will look you up. These people would never have invested the time and energy to retrieve that information.

    The information may have existed, but it was effectively forgotten. The average person didn't need a "right" to be forgotten, because the average person got forgotten by the simple practical reality of how much work it was to look something like that up.

    "And these people today who want this right have greatly inflated ideas of the world's interest in anything about them. "

    "the world's interest"? you are probably right. But the interest of the people immediately around them? Sure those people will look them up. The people around us are the people one interacts with though, so it has a pretty significant impact on one's life. Its foolish to think otherwise.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 19 2017, @07:25AM (1 child)

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @07:25AM (#611737) Journal

      Sifting through microfiche was more common than you think. I had to do it often in college fro two different fields of research. It was indexed (sort of). And one got pretty good at it.

      Old land records often exist in no other forms in many places. And yes one could occasionally find records of fraudulent transactions in the microfiche.
      But fraud was harder in those days, you had to do more of it in person. Now you can hide in your mom's basement and commit fraud
      half way around the world.

      There never was a right to be forgotten. And NOW is exactly the wrong time in history to introduce such a right.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @10:35AM (#611761)

        Sifting through microfiche was more common than you think. I had to do it often in college fro two different fields of research.

        Exactly: You did it for research. You probably would not have done it in order to check on your new neighbour, unless you already had some very concrete suspicion.

    • (Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Tuesday December 19 2017, @02:23PM (3 children)

      by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @02:23PM (#611801)

      Just over two decades ago I had a loud, miserable neighbor living in the apartment next door to me. I mentioned it to someone I worked with and they said something about him being a terrible guy, and that I should check with the local newspaper about him. I called up the paper, mentioned his name, and was told that they did know him, had a file, and made a copy for me to pick up.

      It turns out that about then years before he'd intentionally run his former girlfriend and her current boyfriend off the road and gone to prison for it. When he got out he moved next door to me. So his ten years hard time explained why he was playing Flashdance over and over a decade after it came out. I always imagined him over there dancing in leg warmers.

      So no sifting "through 10s of thousands of pages and microfiches by hand" required. The info didn't require any more effort than one conversation, one phone call, and a drive to pick up the file (downloading files was still done primarily by automobile in the mid-nineties.)

      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday December 19 2017, @03:46PM (2 children)

        by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @03:46PM (#611827)

        Yes. And? That's a case of PEOPLE literally remembering him. That's an entirely different situation. People don't soon forget, they never did.

        But if you did something bad or stupid before the internet, all you really had to do to be forgotten was move to another zipcode, and he'd get a fresh start with no neighbors or coworkers who knew him.

        This neighbor of yours was obviously still living in the town he'd offended since he was known to the locals and his activities had been recorded in the LOCAL paper, where the staff there remembered him by name as well. All he'd have to have done to get away from his past is move to another city.

        • (Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Tuesday December 19 2017, @06:10PM (1 child)

          by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @06:10PM (#611888)

          Sorry I wasn't more specific but no, the newspaper and the individual were not in the same city, nor the same ZIP code.

          But, you're also making a case against trying to legislate "forgetting." It doesn't work. Just like trying to erase something from the internet. It can't be done.

          • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Tuesday December 19 2017, @08:05PM

            by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @08:05PM (#611941)

            /shrug... so he needs to move further away from the epicenter of his crime or give it more time to fade... or both.

            More importantly they aren't trying to legislate forgetting, or trying to erase something from the internet.
            They're just trying to de-list/de-index certain keyword combinations and/or articles from major search engines, which is very doable.

            Whether it should be done is a debatable point. I'm not exactly siding with the right to be forgotten people, I'm just here by default in arguing that the 'right to be forgotten' did, for all practical purposes, exist in the pre-internet age. Sure there were exceptions, and sure by chance you could bump into someone who knows your past... but for all but the most famous and infamous, a new hair cut, perhaps even a new name, and moving a couple hundred miles was basically enough to leave your past behind you once you'd faded from the current headlines.

    • (Score: 1) by Crash on Tuesday December 19 2017, @08:27PM

      by Crash (1335) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @08:27PM (#611956)

      Don't use your real name online. Those of us that grew up with MUDs, Usenet, etc, knew this well.
      ASL? 99. Yes. Your Dreams.

      Of course, these days it's a little strange - everyone on my phone and extended circles has their real name ... and everytime I happen to message or contact someone - it invariably results in a response of who the heck is Crash? or just ignored heh.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 19 2017, @06:51AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 19 2017, @06:51AM (#611734) Journal

    It used to be, and may still be, that I could go to my local library and find phone books from all around the country.

    You could have either an unlisted number, which wouldn't show up in the phone book or give a partial name.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @12:12PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @12:12PM (#611781)

    Others have addressed this but I'll add my own angle: the huge difference is the level of effort involved.

    If you are a suspected criminal, the police or the FBI or their foreign equivalents in other nations can set resources to track you specifically. That has always been true, from the equivalent of police in ancient Mesopotamia until today.

    When I was a kid, grocery stores didn't have loyalty programs. Now they do, and if you're not a member you pay 50% extra for your groceries. Unless you have plenty of money to spare for the sake of privacy, you're forced to let the grocery store company - and anyone they sell the data to - know where you live, what you buy, what kind of pets you have.

    Even if you turn off the GPS on your phone your wireless carrier can use cell tower connection triangulation to figure out where you are all of the time with a decent level of accuracy. They can sell that information too.

    And of course your credit or debit card is a giant mix of convenience. Convenient alternative to cash for you, convenient vehicle for tracking all of your financial habits for the company that supplies the card - and again, anyone they sell it to.

    We don't have a police state in the US. Not yet. But in countries like China it's being built as we speak and we are laying all of the groundwork for one here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @01:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 19 2017, @01:09PM (#611788)

      > When I was a kid, grocery stores didn't have loyalty programs. Now they do, and if you're not a member you pay 50% extra for your groceries.

      Either you are big on exaggeration or you don't live around here. My grocery loyalty cards (NE USA) are sometimes worth a buck or two off, on certain specials -- perhaps 20% discount on that item. Overall it might be a few % over the year. If there are none of these specials in my purchase, I don't give them the card.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 19 2017, @07:15PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday December 19 2017, @07:15PM (#611913) Journal

    ...and if so, who went around to the libraries blacking out listings for people who chose to exercise this "right."

    You requested an unlisted number and weren't included in the phone book in the first place.