Right to be forgotten invoked to kill review

[bullet]

Originally Posted by disconnected

Maybe not strictly on topic, but I think it must be really difficult to be young now and risk having every stupid thing you do follow you around forever.

Even worse for Methuselah.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by disconnected

Maybe not strictly on topic, but I think it must be really difficult to be young now and risk having every stupid thing you do follow you around forever.

Well, kids have always been warned about their permanent record.
Kids today are digital natives so they know that the internet is forever and that if you say it you own it. The world has always been tough, for young and old. The only thing that has changed is the nature of the pitfalls.

Anyway, the whole "right to be forgotten" thing smacks of a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to answer for their own deeds.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Anyway, the whole "right to be forgotten" thing smacks of a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to answer for their own deeds.

But, how many of us have said things verbally that we really wish we hadn't? I'd be willing to bet, everyone! So, if that applies to saying things off the cuff or in the heat of the moment online too, I can understand why people would want things removing.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please stick to the topic of the thread. Thank you.

Apologies...you are very correct. I was having too much fun and veered off a cliff.

On topic:

From the Post article in Felix's OP:

Leaving aside the fact that Lazic’s request is misdirected, under the ruling — it applies to search engines, not publishers, and only within the E.U. — its implications are kind of terrifying. We ought to live in a world, Lazic argues, where everyone — not only artists and performers but also politicians and public officials — should be able to edit the record according to their personal opinions and tastes. (“Politicians are people just like you and me,” he explains.) This is all in pursuit of some higher, objective truth.

This sounds too much like a "memory hole," in my opinion. I doubt the intent of the EU law is to allow an individual to "Photoshop" public details of his/her life. In the U.S., there is a profound difference in the amount of privacy an ordinary citizen can expect and a person in the public eye can expect. Arguably, the pianist is more in the latter group than the former. Although U.S. and EU law diverge in many areas, EU law doesn't hold sway over a newspaper in the U.S. As others have mentioned, the Streisand Effect will give Lazic exactly what he doesn't want...additional attention to the review he wants expunged.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by TimW

This sounds too much like a "memory hole," in my opinion. I doubt the intent of the EU law is to allow an individual to "Photoshop" public details of his/her life. In the U.S., there is a profound difference in the amount of privacy an ordinary citizen can expect and a person in the public eye can expect.

...or, for that matter, an ordinary citizen in a public venue.

Privacy in a personal sphere is deserving of protection but once you venture into public spaces you should not expect any protection. If you want to run around in your birthday suit in your home you are entitled to privacy but if you venture outside those doors wearing the emperor's new clothes you can't cry when the video goes viral.

[murg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

you can't cry when the video goes viral.

Yes you can, and probably will.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by leaston

But, how many of us have said things verbally that we really wish we hadn't? I'd be willing to bet, everyone! So, if that applies to saying things off the cuff or in the heat of the moment online too, I can understand why people would want things removing.

That effect has always been with us. Once upon a time you could be involved in a scandal in one part of the country and move out to another where people didn't know about it. Not in our modern digital age though. Someone does something and everyone world wide knows about it and can identify you on sight by your picture. It started with the telegraph. At one point they talked about having a line to Gretna green in Scotland that would let authorities there know when young couples who had eloped were to be expected. Now the news that someone has done something not only is sent out before they arrive somewhere else but it is done in real time. Of course people care less about most scandals these days too. Something someone said/did fades from the public memory as unimportant pretty quickly as the next big scandal makes its appearance.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, kids have always been warned about their permanent record.
Kids today are digital natives so they know that the internet is forever and that if you say it you own it. The world has always been tough, for young and old. The only thing that has changed is the nature of the pitfalls.

Anyway, the whole "right to be forgotten" thing smacks of a lack of integrity and an unwillingness to answer for their own deeds.

Such statements are often being made by people who were themselves all to happy to leave knowledge of their youthful misdemeanors behind in the small towns they came from. They also show an enviable detachment from today's realities.
With smartphone cameras being ubiquitous, it is illusionary to believe that young people can control the information on them that's posted online. Get wasted at some party and someone else may very well post pictures online.
What about malicious gossip? "Amanda B at XY High is giving bl**jobs for a tenner" - good luck trying to have something like that taken down from some forum that's registered in Belize or in Panama.
Do you want to tell us that it's fine for any personnel department of any company where she applies for a job some years later to get that stuff after googling her name?

No, there is absolutely no right to be able to obtain what's basically a dossier on someone by only typing a name into a search engine. It's shameful that the ECJ had to make new law with politicians being asleep as usual.
Then there is the usual hypocrisy of Americans tittering about "censorship" in Europe. There are plenty of links being removed from search engines after DMCA take-down notices. Apparently the interests of Disney Corp. do take precedence over those of e.g. a vulnerable teenager, though.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

Get wasted at some party and someone else may very well post pictures online.

Too bad! Next time, be more careful where you get wasted. In other words - think before doing.

Then there is the usual hypocrisy of Americans tittering about "censorship" in Europe. There are plenty of links being removed from search engines after DMCA take-down notices. Apparently the interests of Disney Corp. do take precedence over those of e.g. a vulnerable teenager, though.

One problem with that - the information isn't being removed; just the performance.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Too bad! Next time, be more careful where you get wasted. In other words - think before doing.

I suggest you start a chaperone service. It should do well with that pious attitude of yours.
Young people need some freedom and the possibility to make mistakes for growing up. Even people with a tight moral code like the Amish recognize this when they give young people a time of "Rumspringa". I don't see why young people should be expected to live under permanent surveillance, with information following them for all their lives, just to allow companies like Google to make a fast buck.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

One problem with that - the information isn't being removed; just the performance.

Sure. Let people who want to have in-depth information do the legwork, as they had to do until just a few years ago.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

I suggest you start a chaperone service. It should do well with that pious attitude of yours.
Young people need some freedom and the possibility to make mistakes for growing up. Even people with a tight moral code like the Amish recognize this when they give young people a time of "Rumspringa". I don't see why young people should be expected to live under permanent surveillance, with information following them for all their lives, just to allow companies like Google to make a fast buck.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

...or, for that matter, an ordinary citizen in a public venue.

Privacy in a personal sphere is deserving of protection but once you venture into public spaces you should not expect any protection. If you want to run around in your birthday suit in your home you are entitled to privacy but if you venture outside those doors wearing the emperor's new clothes you can't cry when the video goes viral.

In other words, if it's news, if you've done something stupid to draw attention to yourself in a public venue (often involving the police), it's no longer a "privacy issue." It is now part of the public record. To demand that news be removed from the public record is censorship.

[murg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

tuemonkey, what part of 'this is the internet' don't you quite understand?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by murg

tuemonkey, what part of 'this is the internet' don't you quite understand?

The Tuesday part

[wizwor]

This is why regulation is bad. Lawyers make a living abusing the law.