It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable, yet when something like this happens it's great that no one can cover up their tracks. Now the pro-Russian separists are trying to delete all sorts of info.
It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable
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.
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"
> That passes any reasonable grounds for denying an RTBF request.
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.
>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.
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."
What does "right-to-forget" have anything to do with the separatist pulling info from (supposedly) his own website?
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.
So how did this individual remove the info? Was a right-to-be-forgotten clause get invoked? Or did he just exercise existing privileges to delete his info?
> It's interesting how the right to be forgotten seems so desirable, yet when something like this happens it's great that no one can cover up their tracks. Now the pro-Russian separists are trying to delete all sorts of info.
Are war crimes what 'right to be forgotten' is all about?
> 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.
I'm certainly not saying this was a fake post. Though it's possible, I guess. I'm just saying that the internet is a tool of war. And for those purposes, it's helpful that information can become rapidly-propagated Truth.
However horrific the civilian plane's shooting down is, i don't think accidental shoot down would qualify as a war crime. If anything, the celebratory message about supposed successful shooting down of one more military cargo plane confirms that the rebels, it it were rebels' missile, were intending to shoot at an enemy military target .
"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war..." is a crime against humanity.
The "right to be forgotten" laws aren't really "all about" any particular subject matter as far as I can tell. They seem to be potentially (though not definitely) applicable to nearly any story about a person that might be considered "old news."
Most (adversited) decisions are about elected officials and executives failing their duties. There is a difference between dodging taxes and slaughtering civilians, but the idea (jail sentences for people with political power) is close enough for lawyers to see the need for clarification.
It's easy to cover your tracks, don't post shoot down videos on Facebook, or supply and weapon inventories.
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.
I don't think that anyone is advocating the 'right to be forgotten' as a way of wiping all content you don't like about yourself from the Internet, or even that it extends to content less than a day old.
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.
It's apples and oranges. The right to be forgotten usually doesn't refer to things adults unanonymously post to social networking sites and similar forums.
Agreed! I don't mean to say that it applies to this situation (or that it was a good idea to recognize this right in the first place). I simply answered the question "who says there is a right to be forgotten?" Maybe shmerl did not mean the question literally, but I can't really tell.
It doesn't do any such thing as far as I can tell. The limitations are as clear as mud. It seem to be best summed up as "Any data about any identifiable person that is felt to be 'no longer necessary.'"
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.