okay, but would you be surprised if the EU did have interests in pulling links for non profit entities? A true non profit called wikipedia has links deleted because of the same right to be forgotton.
Ha, ha, ooops! Well done!
More meetings at the highest level and more laws and regulations are surely going to solve this small issue.
Good one, Ive never been all that happy with Wikipaedia, to an extent they strike me as caputualators, early on always threatening to go sponsored. In one case I watched sponsor entities skewing and spinning against a particular companies enrties on wikipaedia and it seemed someone had to be on the take as in hidden sponsors or rules that make it easy to run spin and try to say its transparent.
As much as Google aggrivates me with their information sharing with the gov’t and what not their street maps is not one of them. Look if I walk down the street I’m going to see your stuff. If I were to stand on a neighbouring roof or fly a drone over your house I’d see more of your stuff. Google isn’t actually doing anything more or less than any other normal person can do. And what’s more that’ll be EASIER for average joe to do once maidsafe comes out. Yeah they make millions at it and are professionals at it but so what? If one were to walk down the street and take pics of people’s houses and map it all out then upload it to SAFE there’s not much anyone could do about it. One could do even less if one were to make a DAO for it all. So what if it’s not consentually given? That’s the basis of whistle blowing and political activism a lot of the time: nonconsentual information release. Do we really want someone running the country that has so many skeletons in their closet or that’s a habitual liar or something? Oh if the gov’t doesn’t want something published just call up Google/Youtube and have it removed. Youtube is already censoring activist videos. Do you really think Google won’t censor public records that aren’t in the gov’ts favor?
There is a difference between ordinary people and their privacy and public figues who hold themselves out to be such. Google should not be able to compromise the privacy of ordinary people, especially not for profit. Ordinary people do not have the means to recover from the damage, But we agee on street map and street view.
Dude “public figures” are just people who have made themselves public for whatever reason. What do you think you are doing right now? I have over 500 friends/followers. Perhaps over 1000 spread over different networks. In a sense I’m a public figure. Granted there are some people who have millions but still. Ordinary people who put themselves on the net are at the same amount of risk as the “public figures” moreover they’re being idiots if they think their data isn’t going to be searched. It boggles my mind how many people put their pics blithely up on facebook and then are surprised when their privacy is breached. Dude the net is public domain. If it’s not encrypted it’s free game. If you upload it you are sticking a kick me in the ass sign. No google shouldn’t have the right to delete links at random and break the internet just because some celebrity got drunk one night and is now embarrassed about it.
Yep… Prescribing amnesia may work in science fiction movies, but I don’t think it really works in the real world. If I transact with you we have a right to remember one another, but moreover it is almost a defect if we don’t.
There is no difference between an “ordinary person” and a “public figure” aside from how many people know of them. There are homeless folks in my neighborhood who are “public figures” because they have been there for 30 years, and everyone knows them by name.
There is also no difference between a mom and pop shop and a large corporation aside from success. You cannot have different rules for different people and pretend to be just.
Well we do. The current US law is set up that way to keep for profit media outfits from making sport of people just trying to live their lives who keep to themselves. I disagee with you guys on this. Google doesnt have a right to mine ordinary people’s privacy for profit. It also shouldnt profit from slander and gossip. Slur is another matter. If something untrue is put out that will ruin someone’s life in terms of livilihood and association it shouldnt be there. Credit reporting agencies are the same kind of BS- financial gossip that the EU rightly rules out.
Which law is that?
It doesn’t begin “congress shall make no law”, I assume…
People are embarrassed by the media all of the time. Ordinary or not. If you post publicly you are public.
Google has a right to what you give them.
Its first year tort law stuff. Its on defamation, slander and libel. Its also in that book on freedom of the press cases. If you hold yourself out to be a public person you are fair game. If you are a public person you are fair game. Posting on Google does not make you a public person in the eyes of US- now a million twitter followers is a different story.
Regardless of the case public person or not if untrue stuff is put out on you by the media you can have it redacted or a correction issued and sue.
So lets focus precisely. When unchecked BS is being put out by the privacy miners on Google and when it amounts to libel and slander and when its being used to compromise peoples lives, that is ordinary everyday people not billionaires (they don’t have the same rights sets here I think you’ll find in practice and for obvious reasons.) then a retraction is completely reasonable.
Google is retracting half a billion things a year due to commercial claims. That I find absolutely unacceptable. Honestly screw IP claims generally and especially in comparison to privacy claims. If Google will take off stuff over money claims they need to remove stuff over these more fundamental power claims. This is the thing that never computes if we are going to make a society worth living it its got to be money last not money first. We don’t create situations that privilege money. We are going that way because the rich actually think they can protect their data and are aided in that if non of the data on the rest of is private or under our control. They think of us as chattel to be properly labeled. They see the information asymmetry or the exposure asymmetry as part of their power. That can’t be allowed, there is no toll road on privacy.
That isn’t the same thing as liable or slander or anything like that.
Media around here certainly doesn’t behave in the manner you set out. If they have information they publish it. It doesn’t matter if the person is famous or not. If it is newsworthy it prints. If there is a law against that Cite it. Otherwise you are just being silly… I have learned this lesson the hard way. If they learn something, the print it. Even rape victims names. If people would want to know the newspaper wants to publish.
Anyway redaction will be a thing of the past with SAFE. Something that you celebrate and hate at the same time. It is what it is. But you cannot delete from safe even if a court orders you to.
I am not being silly, its not a law its the core doctrine for a whole body of law. You’re being ignorant on that, go find the whole chapter dedicated to that in the typical required first year tort book. It something no lawyer in the US can pass the bar without knowing.
That is different, although problematic. In this case circumstances can make people a public interest. But giving Fox the equivalent of PRISM so that it can go searching for private victims to misconstrue things about, no way. To me the for profit aspect is huge. You make money off of screwing people this way then I want you skewered. But for others, who I think also need the skewer, profit is not a grave and maximal aggravation but instead it somehow exculpates or makes the act moral and ethical. That’s pure idiocy. So again for me the for profit part is huge. We should not be incentivizing this behavior and its not merely unfortunate. The priority in our media outlets should not be profit or fear mongering for ratings as these damage society and this is a structural problem in media and more so in American media than other countries at the moment. Is it surprising that as US freedom of the press has fallen off a cliff its gotten so much worse and so much more irresponsible, its becoming almost pure propaganda and sport with its increasing consolidation.
But lets go back to the greater background issue. Media (if we are going to have one and I don’t think its essential given the tech we have now- remember there was a time before the media) cannot above all things have conflicts of interest or actually be based on that as ours is. Corrupted media is dangerous. That conflict means it continues to consolidate and it continues to mean that instead of power sharing we get rule by unaccountable money and bribery as speech. Our media is based on bribery as speech. That is the worst thing because it means that right down into education people are intentionally misinformed about everything to keep them powerless and subject. In practice it goes where domination and totalitarianism go. We have to reverse it. The way to do that is to get rid of sponsored media, media cannot be based on censorship by so called sponsors.
We agree SAFE and the resultant should provide a compelling replacement for broken media. But I think we also agree that SAFE makes ordinary people who don’t go around intentionally committing wrongs less vulnerable to becoming sport. But I think that is also because it increases exposure for people who act psychopathically and therefore increases the ability to do something about psychopathic behavior.
The current corporate culture is a like a psychopath support network.
You still failed to cite law. If everyone knows it, you should be able to cite it. Calling me ignorant fails to make you point and is rather rude…
Although apparently even though I quoted you I am talking about something totally different than you so this is just a waste of time.
Artificial amnesia will not be possible in SAFE.
Sorry about the rude part. I’d have to get a tort book and then name the string of fundamental cases and explain the reasoning. But my understanding is its basically a reasonable trade off. If you are a public personae you suffer the slings and arrows if fame but then for such persons their income is a hedge, they generally have better means to clear the air or cloud issues. Ordinary folks can have the rest of their lives ruined over one unfortunate media encounter. As an ordinary person you can watch your tenious right to privacy to privacy quickly evaporate if as the object of media inquiry you in anyway cooperate.
How about this Ashley Madison hack?
Ought the victims be able to sue websites that publish the full list?
Why or why not?