Slashdot Mirror
EU Approves Strict New Privacy Rules
An anonymous reader writes: The EU just approved a new set of strict rules governing privacy and data protection, which include a right to be forgotten and to "clear and affirmative consent" for any processing of private data, as well as the right to know when data has been compromised. Culminating more than four years of work, "The reform will replace the current data protection directive, dating back to 1995 when the internet was still in its infancy," the EU said in a statement, "with a general regulation designed to give citizens more control over their own private information in a digitized world of smartphones, social media, internet banking and global transfers." If the rules are broken, the new EU privacy policy includes hefty fines of up to 4% of a firm's total worldwide annual turnover.
The right to be forgotten is such BS.
I say this as a European.
Why does some murderer have the right to be forgotten?
Do we have to delete all records of their crime from the internet?
Completely retarded.
Things like this make me wish freenet wasn't just some hub for perverts to share CP, but was actually used by normal people to circumvent this shit.
Will these rules stop IoT devices from watching me while I urinate and defecate?
Because it's clear now that that's what's going to matter in 5 or 10 years. If the rules don't prevent such things now, then these rules will be outdated really quickly.
This notion that you have a right to be forgotten is beyond parody. The idea that I have to scrub my notes of all mention of your foibles defies logic. If you were convicted of arson in 2015, what on earth makes anyone think that other people are obligated to hide that fact? And how exactly does the passage of time magically imbue facts with liability? In 2020 it will still be relevant and OK to have in the newspaper, but in 2030 it is magically verboten?
I realize that this is motivated by politicians who don't want accounts of their youthful indiscretions publicly available, but the fact that there seems to be broad support for this law is kinda scary. Freedom of speech is a pretty basic and important right. Any law requiring censorship should be well beyond the boundary of public discourse, let alone actually being implemented as law.
I recognize that Europe has a different history with speech and censorship and citizens rights, but c'mon folks, can't we stand up for the right to speak the truth in public?
I've read a lot of this regulation and I think it's probably impossible to comply with. It's also very light on technical guidance for compliance. There are only a few passing mentions of encryption and nothing at all about particular standards. In other words, there is no specific requirement to encrypt data in transit or at rest, but rather a vague suggestion that encryption in general might be a good idea. On the other hand, with respect the right to be forgotten, which is really a right to request erasure, it's unclear whether deleting keys to encrypted data constitutes erasure. It could be read to require actually writing over all the copies of the bits.
The US has been a bit longer at it, a bit blunter too. Don't worry, the EU have their own problems, ones they'll need to deal with or they'll cease to be a thing soonish. At the same time the US don't get to whine they're held to a double standard when that's what they've been doing for ages themselves, wholesale.
Examples? Oh please. Here, just one: The ICC. Prime United States "we don't play well with others" of America, "FUCK YEAH!" material right there.
I checked a subset of the leaked list from BBC last year of articles they had to remove. From those samples I could see three categories:
1: victims. Eg sexual assault victims mentioned by name. It seems OK to me that they get their name removed so that in 20 years their granchildren don't get that search result.
2: a small category of criminals wanting to have their names removed. Which mostly seems OK to me as most countries have a limit to how long such information is publicly available. Eg. I think where I live burglaries are removed after 8 years
3: a wtf category. Two examples: One neo-nazi wanted his name removed from an article about a white power demonstration.. His names is pretty unique so I checked - he is still sputing such nonsense on facebook and twitter, so I don't see why he wanted it removed. The other example is a man in an article about how his one testicle suddenly grew and he immediately went to the doctor. It turned out it wasn't testicular cancer but a benign internal boil. I think it is a positive story about cancer awareness, but I can see why he may not want that to be the first result when someone searches his name.
So basically I agree with the right to be forgotten. When information is no longer in the public interest it should be possible to get the names removed.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/...
The new rules will give individuals greater control over their personal data in the following ways.
The right to be forgotten (Article 17)
Any person will have the right to be âoeforgottenâ/have his or her personal data erased when he or shel no longer wants the data to be processed, provided there are no legitimate reasons for retaining it.
To enforce this right, if a person asks an internet company to erase his/her data, the company should also forward the request to any others that replicate the data.
However, this right would be restricted in some cases, for instance when the data is needed for historical, statistical and scientific purposes, for public health reasons or to exercise the right to freedom of expression.
Also, the right to be forgotten would not apply when the retention of personal data is necessary to fulfil a contract or is required by law.
Purpose of this is to ensure that Facebook, Google and various government and other agencies can't use or sell your private data if you don't want them to.
Not for convicted murderers to be able to erase their past from the internet.
Freedom of speech still applies and still includes news articles about murder.
Just as the laws pertaining to government archives about the case still apply.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
These laws apply to companies that do business in the EU or with EU residents. If you do business in a different country, you have to follow that countries laws.
There's nothing strange about this.
The difference is that the EU doesn't try to impose its laws on other countries. Just on companies that do business within the EU. (And only for the data related to these transactions. As far as I know the laws don't affect what Facebook and Google do with the data they collect from US residents.)
Are you sure you checked a statistically significant subset? The problem with your idea is that a quick web search would have turned up articles to the contrary. The "right to be forgotten" can and will be used improperly, to deny the people their right to information that they need to make intelligent decisions.
An even more serious problem with the right to be forgotten is that it is impeding humanity's development. We need to see other humans' foibles on display, so that we can learn that we are more the same than different, and get some fucking perspective on what is actually happening. When people are able to hide their misdeeds, we get a fake picture of the world. Only a subset of people will actually be able to be forgotten. They gain an unfair advantage over those whose requests will be denied. They get to pretend to be better people than they are, and damn the consequences to everyone else and themselves.
The right to be forgotten is a gigantic step backwards in our quest for acceptance from other humans, and only people who only think about themselves in the short term think otherwise. You're concerned about how much you might like to be forgotten if you do something inconvenient for your reputation. But what about all the other people who have done the same thing? By hiding the fact that you've done it, you're making them look like aberrations, when it could actually be something commonplace. Congratulations, you just failed your fellow man.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not for convicted murderers to be able to erase their past from the internet.
Except, of course, that this is what it has been used for in the past.
Except it wasn't.
For one, these rules won't be applicable for at least two more years.
So unless you're claiming that what happened in the past actually happened in the future...
Also, it didn't even happen in the past, according to your own link.
On December 15, 2009, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in Karlsruhe ruled that German websites do not have to check their archives in order to provide permanent protection of personality rights for convicted criminals.
If anything, these new rules ensure that such cases don't happen again.
Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens
True. Just look in the mirror.
Why? Plenty of illiterate idiots like you to point at and laugh.
Point.
Point point.
Point point point.
Ha-ha.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
When that gets tested in court, they'll likely have to show that this statistical data can no be deanonymised which, given the fact that that's been shown to be basically impossible for any data and still have it remain useful, should be a good time to invest in shares of popcorn merchants.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The backlash against the US happens when a company in country A does business with an individual in country B and the US decides that its laws should apply (e.g. enforcement of US patents). No one objects when the US decides that companies trading in the USA have to obey US laws, any more than they object when the US insists that people living in the USA have to obey US laws.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
such data privacy laws - see John Oliver's recent episode on Credit Reports in the US. That's what happenes if 1 in 20 humans is associated with wrong, outdated information by corporations.
The "right to be forgotten" never applied to German news organizations. It was always intended to limit foreign search engines.
Except all you're able to point at is a single case of one guy's lawyers trying to make Wikipedia and Deutschlandradio internet archives to remove his name - and failing at that.
Ergo... how did you put it... You keep demonstrating your own ignorance and bigotry.
And a rather large dose of "stick it to big US companies" paranoia.
The new rules appear to strengthen the old ones.
Except they specifically list exemptions for legal, archival, scientific research, public interest, freedom of expression etc.
(42) Derogating from the prohibition on processing sensitive categories of data should also be allowed if done by a law, and subject to suitable safeguards, so as to protect personal data and other fundamental rights, where grounds of public interest so justify and in particular for health purposes, including public health and social protection and the management of health-care services, especially in order to ensure the quality and cost-effectiveness of the procedures used for settling claims for benefits and services in the health insurance system, for historical, statistical and scientific research purposes, or for archive services . [Am. 21]
(53) Any person should have the right to have personal data concerning them rectified and a 'right to erasure ' where the retention of such data is not in compliance with this Regulation.
In particular, data subjects should have the right that their personal data are erased and no longer processed, where the data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which the data are collected or otherwise processed, where data subjects have withdrawn their consent for processing or where they object to the processing of personal data concerning them or where the processing of their personal data otherwise does not comply with this Regulation.
However, the further retention of the data should be allowed where it is necessary for historical, statistical and scientific research purposes, for reasons of public interest in the area of public health, for exercising the right of freedom of expression, when required by law or where there is a reason to restrict the processing of the data instead of erasing them.
Also, the right to erasure should not apply when the retention of personal data is necessary for the performance of a contract with the data subject, or when there is a legal obligation to retain this data. [Am. 27]
Seriously... get yourself some enema. Being so full of shit is not healthy.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
These rules will apply to any firms that handle the data of EU residents, regardless of whether the firms have any presence in the EU or not. That is the EU forcing its laws on the rest of the world. Why is there tremendous negative backlash when the US attempts to impose its laws on other countries but the EU gets a free pass when they do the same thing. It sure seems like a double standard to me.
The USA tried to extradite Richard O'Dwyer from the UK because of a website he ran which was illegal under US law but perfectly legal under UK law. So when it comes to countries trying to force their laws on the rest of the world the USA is right up there leading the way.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Things like "everyone is required to have an id at all times" , being mandated under the law to report changes of residence to authorities - all that shit ,which is reserved to sexual offenders only in the USA, is considered normal in EU.
Is it? We don't even have ID cards in the UK so that is over 1/10th of the entire population of the EU who don't have ID cards. I don't know of anyone in any of the EU countries I've spoken to who have ever mentioned anything about being forced to report changes of residence to the authorities - you're certainly not required to in the UK. You should stop believing everything you watch on Fox News because its making you look stupid.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
I can't believe how many people, mostly Americans, think its bad that there is a law out there forcing companies to tell you what they intend to do with your personal data and if they have a breach where that data is compromised. They also seem to have a poor grasp of the right to be forgotten rule as well. Its not intended to hide stuff that politicians or corporations have done in the past but is instead there to protect private individuals from having irrelevant shit they did when they were young and stupid which no longer needs to see the light of day from being able to be found and used against them. Its there to protect those who were falsely accused from having to undergo further misery in their lives. And fuck you if you're too stupid to see that.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Underrated
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Yup. That is the idea. Although, most people assume OJ did kill his wife now, he actually was found not guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. But, he spent the rest of his life being persecuted for it, which eventually led to him committing additional crimes. The publicity of it ruined his life. Maybe he deserved that in this particular case, but most people do not. The public has no right to "mob rule" ruin someone's life over something they've been acquitted of. This new law exists to try to humanely protect these individuals.
Your telegraph article mentions people claiming the right be forgotten. No evidence that they were granted it.
Gossip is society's form of the immune system. In the bigger picture, it ejects those people who don't conform to that particular cultures ideals; especially when said person hasn't done anything actually "illegal" just "culturally immoral".
Your telegraph article mentions people claiming the right be forgotten. No evidence that they were granted it.
It doesn't matter; at least a subset of bad claims will be granted, if history is any indicator. I am not going to ignore history, so you can forget that argument right now.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer." - William Blackstone
People like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams put their own spin on this but Blackstone said it first: Justice works better when we err on the side of caution. "This might possibly be misused so we must forbid it" is a terrible policy. In fact, this exact stance applied to encryption is what we like to ridicule the NSA for.
And no, RTBF claims are not destroying our historical record for all future generations to come. Your blog is not the sole source of historical information and in the grand scheme of things the important bits will be preserved throught things like court records. Sure, it might be interesting for future generations to do statistical analysis on blog posts - but then again I don't think that most blogs will be preserved in any form whatsoever for the next hundred years. A website dies, the information goes away. Perhaps the Internet Archive has a copy but plenty of times it doesn't. This is not a tragedy.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)