EU backs right to be forgotten
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27388289
Well its good news if you have ever stuck a photograph of you standing in your pants on the internet
But it would be virtually pointless to do that wouldn't it
Well its good news if you have ever stuck a photograph of you standing in your pants on the internet
But it would be virtually pointless to do that wouldn't it
Well I'll actually stick my neck out here and say I support the principle. I know for a fact that many employersand recruiters do a Google search as a matter of course when speaking to potential candidates and while it's fair enough if the person in question is a convicted child molester applying to work at a school or if someone is a prominent member of the National Front, it's not fair on those who's Google results show up a drunken misjudgement or a 20 year old minor conviction. It's also disproportionately hard on those with distinctive names while a John Smith or Norman Conkers can get away with murder.
AJS- said:
Well I'll actually stick my neck out here and say I support the principle. I know for a fact that many employersand recruiters do a Google search as a matter of course when speaking to potential candidates and while it's fair enough if the person in question is a convicted child molester applying to work at a school or if someone is a prominent member of the National Front, it's not fair on those who's Google results show up a drunken misjudgement or a 20 year old minor conviction. It's also disproportionately hard on those with distinctive names while a John Smith or Norman Conkers can get away with murder.
Who gets to decide what is relevant and for how long the information should be available.If they want the bankruptcy removing after 5 years, why should the OBE remain. Either both show character or neither.
Einion Yrth said:
Symbolica said:
Politicians and the judiciary should be prohibited from making any laws or judgements regarding the internet unless they can clearly explain what it is and how it works.
This principle should not be limited to the internet.voyds9 said:
Who gets to decide what is relevant and for how long the information should be available.
If they want the bankruptcy removing after 5 years, why should the OBE remain. Either both show character or neither.
I suppose the owner of the name is the obvious choice but I don't see any strong reason why you couldn't sue to have someone else's deleted if you had a good reason. If they want the bankruptcy removing after 5 years, why should the OBE remain. Either both show character or neither.
As to where exactly the line is drawn I suppose that will be up to the courts on a case by case basis. The logical bar would seem to be the point at which something visible online yet fundamentally irrelevant is apparently having a negative effect on the individual concerned now.
AJS- said:
I suppose the owner of the name is the obvious choice but I don't see any strong reason why you couldn't sue to have someone else's deleted if you had a good reason.
As to where exactly the line is drawn I suppose that will be up to the courts on a case by case basis. The logical bar would seem to be the point at which something visible online yet fundamentally irrelevant is apparently having a negative effect on the individual concerned now.
But why just the negative aspect.As to where exactly the line is drawn I suppose that will be up to the courts on a case by case basis. The logical bar would seem to be the point at which something visible online yet fundamentally irrelevant is apparently having a negative effect on the individual concerned now.
If two people are competing for a job, one is a discharged bankrupt but has an OBE, the other never bankrupt but no gong.
As I bankrupt I would want that deleting, as a normal candidate I would want the OBE deleting, either both are relevant or neither.
voyds9 said:
But why just the negative aspect.
If two people are competing for a job, one is a discharged bankrupt but has an OBE, the other never bankrupt but no gong.
As I bankrupt I would want that deleting, as a normal candidate I would want the OBE deleting, either both are relevant or neither.
Because it's the negative aspects that could have a harmful effect on people now for no good reason. There are ways of checking if someone was declared bankrupt, but I believe there's also a limitation (7 years from being discharged?). If two people are competing for a job, one is a discharged bankrupt but has an OBE, the other never bankrupt but no gong.
As I bankrupt I would want that deleting, as a normal candidate I would want the OBE deleting, either both are relevant or neither.
Jasandjules said:
This strikes me as one of those things where they don't realise they can't actually do what they say....
Welcome to planet EU!My first thought on this story was that the EU are trying to gain the ability to censor the internet...
Edited by steveT350C on Wednesday 14th May 19:55
Is it physically possible to erase history?
In theory you could have a pic an individual would rather be deleted on every single webpage in the world over every single country in the world. How do you delete it? What about dead websites which no one any longer administrates say the website owner has passed away who then deletes the history?
In theory you could have a pic an individual would rather be deleted on every single webpage in the world over every single country in the world. How do you delete it? What about dead websites which no one any longer administrates say the website owner has passed away who then deletes the history?
Welshbeef said:
Is it physically possible to erase history?
In theory you could have a pic an individual would rather be deleted on every single webpage in the world over every single country in the world. How do you delete it? What about dead websites which no one any longer administrates say the website owner has passed away who then deletes the history?
There are two different elements at play here. In theory you could have a pic an individual would rather be deleted on every single webpage in the world over every single country in the world. How do you delete it? What about dead websites which no one any longer administrates say the website owner has passed away who then deletes the history?
If the photograph was taken without your permission then there are already laws to have it removed by the likes of Google. It is just that they chose to ignore the law. Max Mosely for example, had to force them in the courts to abide by existing laws.
What this latest ruling is about is removing information that is actually part of the public record. In other words it is something all together new and with far reaching ramifications.
There are two arguments, if someone has paid for their crime then society sees the debt as paid and the person should be able to move on with their life. Secondly, what they did is public record, as in public and forms part of human history.
The obvious answer to this is that someone who wants to expunge or counter the negative information of their past could easily do so by dedicating their life to doing good and ensuring that these positive acts are what are found first when they are Googled.
We shouldn't be deleting public information and individuals have other tools to ensure a negative act in their past isn't the only data that is shown about them. It is their choice.
DonkeyApple said:
There are two different elements at play here.
If the photograph was taken without your permission then there are already laws to have it removed by the likes of Google. It is just that they chose to ignore the law. Max Mosely for example, had to force them in the courts to abide by existing laws.
What this latest ruling is about is removing information that is actually part of the public record. In other words it is something all together new and with far reaching ramifications.
There are two arguments, if someone has paid for their crime then society sees the debt as paid and the person should be able to move on with their life. Secondly, what they did is public record, as in public and forms part of human history.
The obvious answer to this is that someone who wants to expunge or counter the negative information of their past could easily do so by dedicating their life to doing good and ensuring that these positive acts are what are found first when they are Googled.
We shouldn't be deleting public information and individuals have other tools to ensure a negative act in their past isn't the only data that is shown about them. It is their choice.
Ok so what is "history" beyond what time frame is ok?If the photograph was taken without your permission then there are already laws to have it removed by the likes of Google. It is just that they chose to ignore the law. Max Mosely for example, had to force them in the courts to abide by existing laws.
What this latest ruling is about is removing information that is actually part of the public record. In other words it is something all together new and with far reaching ramifications.
There are two arguments, if someone has paid for their crime then society sees the debt as paid and the person should be able to move on with their life. Secondly, what they did is public record, as in public and forms part of human history.
The obvious answer to this is that someone who wants to expunge or counter the negative information of their past could easily do so by dedicating their life to doing good and ensuring that these positive acts are what are found first when they are Googled.
We shouldn't be deleting public information and individuals have other tools to ensure a negative act in their past isn't the only data that is shown about them. It is their choice.
What about crimes say that 20 years ago Mr X assaulted a child then history wiped and goes for a job in Primary school etc? What crimes are ok to be forgotten and which are not?
Its an interesting problem
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff