Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 24 2018, @02:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the If-it's-not-written-down-it-doesn't-exist? dept.

The GDPR "right to be forgotten" is now being used to remove court cases from the internet. Seems the "right to be forgotten" is on a collision course with free speech and open government.

The complaint against Bujaldon is fairly damning, and while Bujaldon tried to get the case dismissed, the court was not at all impressed. The current docket suggests that the parties are attempting to work out a settlement, but having yourself be a defendant accused of real estate and securities fraud can't be good for the old reputation.

Never fear, however, for the GDPR has a Right to be Forgotten in it, and Bujaldon is apparently using it to delete his own name from the dockets for which he is a defendant

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180920/17133740682/gdpr-being-used-to-try-to-disappear-public-us-court-docket.shtml


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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by zocalo on Monday September 24 2018, @06:38AM

    by zocalo (302) on Monday September 24 2018, @06:38AM (#739085)
    Let's see how on the ball the US lawyer's are first, shall we? The GDPR has six exceptions where it does not apply, including the right to be forgotten clause, which include "specific cause", "legal obligation", "vital interests" (meant to cover life safety issues, so possibly a bit of a stretch for financial fraud), "legitimate interest" (necessary for the the processing of a third party... like a court), and - most damaging of all - "public task", defined as where the processing is necessary to perform a task in the public interest or for official functions, and the task or function has a clear basis in law. In fact, the only exception clause that doesn't seemingly apply in letting the US court tell him to GTFO is "contract", but presumably he signed a few of those with his victims that could be used as evidence as well.

    Of course, even if he does get told to GTFO by the US courts, he'll not doubt try appealing to the EU courts and drag it out a few more years before they hopefully (probably unlikely though) establish some precendent that injects some sanity into the whole RTBF crap, but as long as he's doing so from a US jail cell I don't think his victims are going to mind too much.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3