Slashdot Mirror


Thousands of Europeans Petition For Their 'Right To Be Forgotten'

The EU's new rule (the result of a court case published May 13) requiring that online businesses remove on request information that is "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" has struck a chord with more than 12,000 individuals, a number that's rising fast. Other search engines, ISPs, and firms are sure to follow, but the most prominent reaction to the decision thus far, and one that will probably influence all the ones to come, is Google's implementation of an online form that users can submit to request that information related to them be deleted. The Daily Mail reports that the EU ruling "has already been criticised after early indications that around 12 per cent of applications were related to paedophilia. A further 30 per cent concern fraud and 20 per cent were about people's arrests or convictions"; we mentioned earlier this month one pedophile's request for anonymity. As the First Post story linked above puts it, the requirement that sites scrub their data on request puts nternet companies in the position of having to interpret the court’s broad criteria for information meeting the mandate's definition of "forgettable," "as well as developing criteria for distinguishing public figures from private individuals." Do you favor opt-out permissions for reporting facts linked to individuals? What data or opinions about themselves should people not be able to suppress? (Note: Google's form has this disclaimer: "We're working to finalize our implementation of removal requests under European data protection law as soon as possible. In the meantime, please fill out the form below and we will notify you when we start processing your request." That finalization may take some time, since there are 28 data-protection agencies across the EU to harmonize.)

29 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. All I'll say... by jaeztheangel · · Score: 2

    Is privacy requires work.

    1. Re:All I'll say... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      But "privacy" should not mean that the right to hide your past should take priority over the right of others to speak the truth.

    2. Re:All I'll say... by bondsbw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And not everyone agrees on the definition of privacy, what qualifies as "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant", or what to do with misleading information.

      A friend was recently arrested for sexual acts on a child at a daycare. Neither the newspaper nor the police department cared that there were witnesses that say it couldn't have happened. They didn't care that it took years for it to come up from a child who almost certainly was too young to even remember what happened that many years ago. They didn't care that the father had some longstanding beef with the daycare he worked at. Nope, they just wanted to plaster my friend's name and face across the internet and newspapers. The result? Death threats, loss of job, losing his and his parents' savings for bail... yeah, basically turning the life around of one of the (morally) best people I've ever known, without justification and without apology.

      I'm not sure this will ever truly have a solution.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:All I'll say... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's all very well, but you're talking about someone whose life is being destroyed right now. Starting a slow process so no-one else will suffer a similar fate in a decade or two is great, but woefully inadequate for the problem at hand (to which some degree of solution should already be available in most western democracies, via some version of wrongful arrest law and some version of defamation law, both of which should be designed for exactly these kinds of circumstances).

      Perhaps the single most important argument for why defamation laws should exist at all is that once someone's reputation has been tainted, often no apology or correction can ever truly undo all the damage. This is also, IMHO, a strong argument for not allowing anyone to be named as a suspect or defendant in a criminal case prior to at least having them charged with something, or preferably having them properly convicted by a competent court.

      If the situation with the GP's friend really was as described, then neither the police nor the media were behaving in a neutral, acceptable way, and both should be dealt with accordingly. And then the individual's public record should quite rightly be cleansed and the unproven allegations "forgotten", which is the whole point of the European legal position we're talking about.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:All I'll say... by Entrope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There should be a balancing test between the public interest in a (true) fact and the privacy interests involved in its disclosure. There is negative public interest in having lists of credit card or Social Security numbers being published like that: the only real purpose is for fraud. On the contrary, there is clear and strong public interest in having someone's past run-ins with the law being available -- so that others can make an informed evaluation whether they want to deal with the person in question. Europe seems to think that its citizenry is too stupid to make that kind of decision, and thus does not consider that there is public interest in making those facts available.

    5. Re:All I'll say... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And would that be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

      Because "Three years ago, Fred was charged with child sex offences" might be a true statement, but it's a very different statement to "Three years ago, Fred was charged with child sex offences, but was unanimously found not guilty by a jury after the person pressing the charges turned out to be his ex-wife's best friend, who was subsequently convicted of perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice after evidence emerged that she had paid all three of the prosecution's other witnesses to make co-ordinated false accusations against Fred."

      I'm not sure anyone deserves to have long-past transgressions haunt them forever, even if they are reported factually. There are enough unwarranted prejudices in society, without someone struggling to get a job at 40 because the Internet never forgets that they were once cautioned for stealing a chocolate bar at the age of 14.

      Either way, merely "This is the truth, so I may speak it without taking any responsibility for the consequences" has always been a horribly dangerous principle to support. Context is everything when it comes to reputations, and never more so than in the Internet age where reputations can last forever and reach all around the world.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    6. Re:All I'll say... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      europe is not 'stupid'. its US that are stupid.

      they lead us, head and shoulders, in privacy. only a fool would criticize privacy.

      the internet does not trump the thousands of years of social morals and standards.

      "just because you can, does not mean you SHOULD"

      too much info is already there online. I'm all in favor of reeling a lot of it back, when it comes to ruining an innocent person's life. yes, we SHOULD think about mutual respect and not just say 'once its out there, its out there'. that's a cop-out and many people in the world are tired of that childish attitude.

      I applaud europe for thinking about how society should work, not just letting the googles of the world dictate the 'new normal' to us.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    7. Re:All I'll say... by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      But it is out there. Sorry but you can't remove it no matter how many laws you have that says you can. You ruined the right to freely exchange information for what?

    8. Re:All I'll say... by mrbester · · Score: 5, Informative

      We've got this thing in UK called Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This plainly states that when a conviction is deemed "spent" (depends on offence for the timescale, some offences never expire of course) then that it deemed to have never happened in the first place. This can even include being sent to prison. Any use of that information is prohibited and there is no upper limit for a fine that can be imposed for doing so. Plus, use of that information will get you sued for libel, which you will lose and lose badly.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    9. Re:All I'll say... by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      That's why we have libel and slander laws.

      I also think police and prosecutors should be held to libel and slander. When they raid a house and find a kitchen scale, they should not use biased terms such as "drug paraphernalia" that poisons the jury pool and reputation of the person they are investigating, in fact they and the prosecutor should not speak until trial and let it go there where the other side has an equal voice.

      Also, the sex laws in place are ridiculous and need to be laxed.

      But I don't recognize the right to be forgotten. I just don't. Too many pitfalls. It's not a right, just a wish.

    10. Re:All I'll say... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On the contrary, there is clear and strong public interest in having someone's past run-ins with the law being available -- so that others can make an informed evaluation whether they want to deal with the person in question.

      Please define "run-in with the law."

      Here's the problem with your statement: loads of people are arrested every single day for stupid reasons and often without any real evidence of wrong-doing. Only some percentage of them are ultimately charged with a crime. And only an even smaller percentage are ever convincted.

      Supposedly, in the United States, there is a right against "double jeopardy" or being tried again for the same crime once exonerated. A legal corollary to that is that you can't be punished more than once for the same offense. That right exists precisely to prevent malicious prosecution that could keep coming back and harassing someone or even ruining their character through repeated abuse of the legal system... even without sufficient evidence for conviction. It is designed to require the State to present its case, have a speedy trial, and then let the person alone again if it can't prove wrong-doing, so they can get on with their lives. And yet what you're advocating is effectively a private version of this sort of harassment: regardless of the legal outcome, we should be suspicious of those who have had "run-ins with the law."

      We have media reports every day of people who are arrested and people who go to trial. Those initial bursts of media activity are usually the strongest. Unless it's a particularly gruesome or unusual trial, usually the media attention tapers off... and often we NEVER even hear about when the charges are dropped or the trial is stopped or the person is acquitted. If it does appear, it might be buried in a small short paragraph story, instead of the big headline that followed the arrest.

      Media coverage thus gives an inaccurate and often even completely false portrayal of people who have had "run-ins with the law." In years past, the media coverage would have been lost except in some archive, requiring someone to dig through old stacks of papers or microfilm. Nowadays, it is often available instantly with the typing of a few characters on a computer.

      There's a reason why we require people to swear an oath to tell "the whole truth" and not just "the truth." Even facts -- like person X was arrested or person Y went on trial -- can often be incredibly misleading without context of what happened later. So, even if you want to advocate that we should continue to be suspicious and punish those who have been CONVICTED of serious crimes after they have served their time (itself a questionable idea), there still is a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of those who were NOT convicted (or perhaps never even tried or even charged, for lack of evidence).

      "Run-ins with the law" are not themselves a crime, and people should not be punished or have their reputation ruined for them.

    11. Re:All I'll say... by marsu_k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm European and do think that privacy is very valuable. I also think the decision was utterly retarded, ripe for abuse and obviously made by people who have no idea about technology.

      So, what is Google supposed to erase from the web? An example is here - in Finnish, I'm sorry, but I'll try to paraphrase a bit (you can run it through the translation service of your choice, if you wish). A person approached Helsingin Sanomat, a major Finnish newspaper, offering to be interviewed about why he wants his info removed from the web. He had committed some felonies a decade ago. He felt that he had already served his punishment (given how lenient our sentencing is, he most certainly has) and wanted a fresh start.

      But the reporters dug a bit deeper into his life - turns out that there are ongoing court cases against him for both attempted fraud and fraud. After this was pointed out to him, he refused to be interviewed or his name associated with the article.

      In this case, it was the reporters who found out about this. But they had only a single person to process. Should Google themselves figure out individually which claims have merit? Or should Google just automatically censor everything on request (let's face it, that's what this really is)? And most importantly, Google does not host the content. If there is an issue with the content, shouldn't one contact the content provider?

    12. Re:All I'll say... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      What if you file a request for google to remove a link from a search result and they do that, but the info is still out there and they re index it later? Are they supposed to be eternally vigilant for filtering your pedo info?

    13. Re:All I'll say... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree that the US justice system is too quick to arrest and prosecute people, and that many things are wrongly defined as crimes. If you want to fix that, then fix it

      Yes, I agree it would be great to "fix it." But even if we stop a significant percentage of bad arrests and prosecutions, police are never going to be 100% sure when they have to arrest someone in a situation where there's a apparently significant safety threat. And prosecutors are never going to be 100% certain they'll get a guilty plea. Even if we don't arrest people for stupid laws, we'll still have errors and abuses of power.

      So, even if we do the reform you suggest, we just reduce the frequency of the problem, but still have people whose names and reputations are ruined unnecessarily. You're never going to get a perfect system.

      And as long as you have a free press, you'll have sensationalist journalism that's going to unfairly present those who have been arrested or accused. As far as I can tell, we have a few options:

      (1) Attempt something like this "right to be forgotten" (which, by the way, I don't really think will work well)
      (2) Have secret police and court proceedings (not good for anyone -- will lead to more abuse rather than less)
      (3) Severely restrict freedom of the press and publishing information about people arrested or accused (not good for general freedom, also likely to lead to abuse)
      (4) Force news media to run equivalent levels of coverage refuting their accusations when charges are dropped or someone is acquitted (never gonna happen, and nobody will pay attention anyway)
      (5) Actively begin investigating and prosecuting people who are suspected of discriminating against those who have had a "run in with the law" but were never convicted or charged (again, unlikely to happen)

      I'm open to other ideas. These all sound pretty impossible to me, and some sound stupid. But perhaps trying to let someone who was never charged or convicted of a crime to attempt to ensure that news stories about an erroneous arrest aren't the top search engine link is one small concession, and probably the least worrisome as a threat to other freedoms. I don't know.

    14. Re:All I'll say... by marsu_k · · Score: 2

      Uhh, no we don't have jurors. Nor do I think the results should be hidden, too much of MiniTruth for me.

    15. Re:All I'll say... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 2

      "Double jeopardy" in the US is not intended to prevent people from being tried twice if they are found innocent once. It's specifically intended to keep a single level of government from repeatedly trying somebody for the same crime. This means that if you are accused of kidnapping someone in South Dakota, and the body is found in North Dakota, you could be tried three different times. Once by each Dakota, and a third time by the Feds. The protection does what the founders intended it to do quite well: no President bothers trying to harass his opponents with constant legal charges.

      The fact that you can be tried by the state and the Feds also militates against the major anti-freedom feature of the US System that exists in practice: the fact this it is generally easy to oppress people with minimal interference from the Courts if the Feds can't come in and bust heads. For example, police accused of beating innocent people are found innocent at the state level, and convicted by Federal Courts of Civil Rights Violations.

      As for your point that even people found innocent by the Courts can be punished by their neighbors, under the US System that is freedom. In some ways this is the worst aspect of our system. Most of the horribly oppressive things that happen in the US aren't done by the government itself, but are done by private citizens using their own freedom as cover to oppress others. But until somebody gets 38 states to ratify an amendment to the contrary, Casey Anthony's neighbors are not legally required to treat her like a good mother who suffered a tragic accident just because the Jury found her Not Guilty (Innocent is not a Jury verdict allowed in the US).

    16. Re:All I'll say... by William+Baric · · Score: 2

      > only a fool would criticize privacy

      Privacy is about hiding what we do and who we really are. I guess there are two main reasons we may want to do that. The first is to avoid being a victim, which I think is fair enough. The second is to avoid punishment after doing something reprehensible, from a simple lie in order to obtain something we don't deserve to a serious crime, which I find hard to justify.

      What's interesting is the reason we need privacy in order to not be a victim is because there are people who will use their privacy in order to avoid punishment after making us their victim. Privacy looks to me like an arms race.

      I wonder... What would it be like if we stopped this arms race and lived in a world where there was absolutely no privacy? On the plus side, it would be a world with no (unpunished) crime and no (unpunished) abuse of power. There would be absolutely no reward to commit a crime or abuse one's power. No more bullies in school, no more abusive managers at work, no more cheaters, thieves, crooks or corrupt politicians. No more lies. Everyone would be judged exactly for who they are and what they do. It would be a world perfectly fair.

      What would be the negative side of a society without privacy?

      And even in if we can't totally suppress privacy, wouldn't it be a good thing to live in a world where there was less bullies, less abusive managers, less cheaters, less crooks and less corrupt politicians? Wouldn't it be a good thing to live in a fairer world?

      Why do you want privacy so much?

  2. Insanity by skywire · · Score: 2

    The fundamental flaw in all this is that Google is not a big website full of content that they publish. Google indexes content on other websites. If someone wants to use the state to force others not to publish truthful information about them (questionable in itself), then let them go after those doing the publishing. Google is the wrong target.

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    1. Re:Insanity by LoztInSpace · · Score: 2

      Google is certainly the wrong target, but they are very well placed to capitalise on any forthcoming law. The correct way of dealing with content is, with sufficient justification, to require that it is removed from the sites. Who knows better than Google where that content is? What better influence to comply with such requirements than "you may be removed from Google". Search engines are in prime position to capitalise on any sort of mandate to remove or issue take-down notices provided there's a small fee involved. An analogy is credit rating - they don't lend the money but they have influence over those that do. You need to clear your name with the agency not the lender.

    2. Re: Insanity by afgam28 · · Score: 2

      That's what I find so strange about this ruling. Search engines like Google have to remove links to certain articles, but newspapers and journalists are explicitly protected when publishing said articles.

      http://m.holdthefrontpage.co.u...

      This is kind of like legalizing piracy while at the same time forcing The Pirate Bay to remove links.

    3. Re: Insanity by jonsmirl · · Score: 2

      Heck, I can even see source sites generating automated ways to combat this. Continuously keep poking Google to reindex your site. When you see the Google crawler insert meaningless random tidbits into the URLs. Now the other side of the robot war will keep issuing takedowns on these randomized URLs but since there is a cycle time of a week or so you will always have a set of working URLs in the Google index.

  3. US by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The UK and most of Europe is unlike the US in that once convicted criminals that have been punished, unless of a particularly serious crime, there are laws protecting their rights to not have that information disclosed, so that they can resume a normal job or whatever in society.

    With the US system of throwing more people into prison per capita than pretty much any other country, and also that in the US such things are permanently on your record, it can only make it much harder for ex-cons to ever find work again and resume a lawful life. The system is self-defeating in making it much more likely that ex-cons actually have no option but to turn back to crime to even make a living.

    The problem with Google is that they are clearly assuming that US law/mindset should operate worldwide. Google need to get over themselves and make sure their information retention follows the same rehabilitation law that exists already to protect the rights of ex-offenders, for a very good reason.

    IMHO we should have the right to control any and all information about us that is stored by corporations. We should also be able to force them to disclose all the info they do store about us. In fact the whole question of who owns that information should be determined. I beleive if the information is about you, then you should own it and so have full control of it.

    1. Re:US by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      The problem with Google is that they are clearly assuming that US law/mindset should operate worldwide. Google need to get over themselves and make sure their information retention follows the same rehabilitation law that exists already to protect the rights of ex-offenders, for a very good reason.

      I don't understand -- how is Google "assuming" this? As far as I can tell, Google's explicit assumptions are as follows: (1) there is an internet, (2) it has information on it, (3) there should be an index of that information.

      I don't see how any of this implies that Google is "assuming" anything about US law or anything about the rights of ex-offenders.

      If information is so defaming to a person's character that it should be eliminated from an index, shouldn't that information be deleted from the primary sites that are serving the information on the internet in the first place? Why is Google the "evil" thing here? (Obviously Google IS evil, but I'm wondering about this particular case...)

      This is like a situation where you have a private "unlisted" telephone number, and the phone company is obligated not to give it out -- that's your "right." But then they DO give it out, and it gets published in some aggregate phone directories, on various web databases, etc. The phone company is violating your "right" (such as it is) by continuing to give out the personal information about you, so why is your only recourse to sue those who catalog the information, rather than those who are giving it out in the first place?

      Of course, we would quickly run into a serious problem if we actually targeted the real offenders here -- i.e., the ones who continue to serve up the information you find so offensive. It would require retroactively going around and deleting old media stories online -- and people would rightly find that disturbing because it would really be "rewriting the past" in some significant way.

      The reality is that before the internet, it was hard not only to FIND information, but to ACCESS it as well. Google makes it easier to FIND the information, but ultimately it is the online character that makes it easier to ACCESS -- and if Google won't index that information, you can often search an individual media site or something to find it quickly as well. Contrast that with a few decades ago, where simply ACCESSING information in an old newspaper or court record would require a trip across town to a library or archive, and potentially digging through microfilm or something.

      You can discuss how Google should change their policies, but ultimately Google isn't the one serving up all the information you're concerned about. I'm not saying search engines shouldn't be regulated in some fashion, but they're only one part of the issue... and not really the root cause.

  4. this issue really hits a sore spot with me.. by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 2

    i just do not get this.

    as someone who battles on a daily basis with the sins of my past ( nowadays even women i try to date run criminal background checks ), i don't see how this effort is going to really help anyone.the way they think it is.

    there are all sorts of FREE sites that dish the public information that these people are trying to block Google from aggregating, and the moment these privacy invaders realize Google no longer is a valid source for getting the info their paranoia craves, they will find another site that does.

    you are living under a proverbial pre-interwebz rock if you think this Google opt-out form is going to prevent the people are are interesting in screening and snooping from learning things from your background like felony convictions and such.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    1. Re:this issue really hits a sore spot with me.. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

      And I just don't get what all the opposition is about... it's not a perfect solution, but since people haven't come up with a perfect solution I am quite happy to go with a change that *helps*.

    2. Re:this issue really hits a sore spot with me.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      there are all sorts of FREE sites that dish the public information that these people are trying to block Google from aggregating

      Not in Europe. Credit agencies are strictly controlled (the original case was a guy who was bankrupt years ago). Criminal records are not public information. Employers can ask the police to confirm what you tell them about any criminal record, but if the conviction is spent you don't have to tell them about it and that's that.

      More over commercial entities are not allowed to store data about an individual unless they have some genuine reason to, and only for a limited period of time. The individual has the right to request corrections, or to see what the information is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Re:Every... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some years after a criminal finishes jail time, he has the right to be forgiven and reintegrated a s a normal citizen, just like he had done nothing at all. It has been like that in many European countries for decades if not centuries, it helps one-time criminals to get back to the life of an abiding citizen. This new regulation is applying this to the new situation that appeared with the Internet.

  6. Pedophiles no worse than others by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is with this obsession for using pedophiles to justify the erosion of rights and privacy? No, don't answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

    Pedophiles are no worse than rapists, murderers and other criminals that cause physical harm to others. In fact I would rate them as a lower threat than murderers. How come we consider pedophiles so reprehensible that we go out of our way to ruin their lives forever yet we don't think twice about doing the same for a murderers or serially violent criminals? Should I have the right to know if my neighbor was in jail for killing someone? Shouldn't I be aware that someone in my neighborhood was jailed for beating a man to within an inch of his life? They don't respect life any more than a pedophile.

    And the most idiotic aspect of registering sex offenders is we just lump everyone together. Sex offences can be everything from getting caught pissing on the bushes (your willy is hanging out), mooning someone (yes it is indecent exposure), a 16 y/o having consensual sex with an 18 y/o (statutory rape), right up to full blown violent 1978 "I spit on your grave" rape. So registry maps are full of useless noise.

    Lets take it a step further and also make public a list of people who have: been arrested for drug possession, burglary, prostitution, and assault. This way we can all live in fear of our neighbors. Sounds great right?

    I realize the EU is probably different than the US but every time this crap rolls around idiots start yammering about pedophiles and children.

  7. even former criminals have rights by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What a setback to stone-age ethics.

    What happened to "having paid your debt to society" ? Stop listening to the prison industry.

    Also, "30% were about pedophiles" doesn't tell you anything. Quite a few accusations into that direction are false, sometimes mislead and sometimes intentionally fraudulent, because there's no easier way to ruin a man's life than having his face in the papers with the word "pedophile" next to it. And more often than not, when the court case reveals that everything was made up and doesn't have one leg to stand on, the papers won't report that on the front page. And if someone googles for it, they are much more likely to find something saying you are a pedophile than the tiny page-20 posting that said actually no, you aren't.

    If you're wrongly accused of a crime, you absolutely have every right to have that forgotten. In fact, this is probably the prime example as to why we need such a right.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org