Slashdot Mirror


Google Wins Round in Fight Against Global Right To Be Forgotten (bloomberg.com)

Google shouldn't have to apply the so-called right to be forgotten globally, an adviser to the EU's top court said in a boost for the U.S. giant's fight with a French privacy regulator over where to draw the line between privacy and freedom of speech. From a report: While backing Google's stance, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar of the EU Court of Justice said that search engine operators must take every measure available to remove access to links to outdated or irrelevant information about a person on request. The Luxembourg-based court follows such advice in a majority of its final rulings, which normally come a few months after the opinions.

Google has been fighting efforts led by France's privacy watchdog to globalize the right to be forgotten, which was created by the EU court in a landmark ruling in 2014, without defining how, when and where search engine operators should remove links. This has triggered a wave of legal challenges. The Alphabet unit currently removes such links EU-wide and since 2016 it also restricts access to such information on non-EU Google sites when accessed from the EU country where the person concerned by the information is located -- referred to as geo-blocking. This approach was backed by Szpunar.

50 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. The Right to Rewrite History by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only the wealthy can afford to employ the right to be forgotten, because it's a game of whack-a-mole. Consequently people with money will wind up looking "cleaner" than everyone else, and we won't move society forward by taking an honest look at our actual behavior and adjusting our perceptions of norms accordingly.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by Shaitan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh I support the idea we should take an honest look at ourselves and adjust our behavior but I don't agree that we should be looking at each others behavior. Society is also ruthless and unforgiving, it will always be true that many things are indefensible to those who weren't there. The only saving grace is that society has a short memory. Technology is transforming a thankfully short memory into an eternal one.

    2. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Not at all. You just tell Google your name and the information that is not relevant any more, and they remove all results containing it from searches of your name, forever. You don't have to submit individual URLs or re-submit periodically, they do it automatically.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, some offences should never be forgotten.

      Child molesters should never again be allowed to work in positions where they have authority over children.

      Corrupt bribe-taking traitors should never again be allowed to work in positions of governmental authority.

    4. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Those things are matters of criminal record and have nothing to do with tech companies stealing data that rightfully belongs to users and monetizing it.

    5. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      You just tell Google your name...

      How? Start here.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    6. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Those things are matters of criminal record

      The EU "right to be forgotten" includes criminal records, and other public records. The UK's RTBF also includes criminal convictions.

      Right to be forgotten

    7. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Google search
      I would like to remove my personal information from Google's search results
      I would like to file a request to delist information per European data protection laws (Right to be Forgotten)

      takes you to https://www.google.com/webmast...

      Fill that in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by Shaitan · · Score: 2

      I do not see any blanket rules of that sort on the page just some offenses. But as a father and protective parent, I still have to acknowledge giving up the sex offender registry to get rid of the massive recidivism caused by effectively making offenders unemployable in any sort of real job after they get out is probably a fair trade off. You do the time, you are no longer guilty of the crime.

    9. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      Technology is transforming a thankfully short memory into an eternal one.

      There are many things I'm ashamed of I did while growing up (and even afterwards!) It gets even worse when you have a evolving set of (moral?) standards.

      Honestly, how does it go: Let them who is without sin cast the first stone. But if I'm anonymous and can convince others to gang on, then there's No Problem (for me!) Sucks to be you.

      I toss a funny/annoying pebble and log off. If it starts an avalanche it's not MY fault. You must have deserved it or it wouldn't have happened. Twilight Zone

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    10. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One solution to the sex offender registry is MORE information, rather than less. One guy may be on the list for raping a four year old. Another guy may be on it for urinating in a public park. Perhaps we should distinguish between these.

      A man in my neighborhood is on the list for having sex with his wife. At the time he was 18 and she was 15. Her parents disapproved of the relationship, and called the police. He accepted a plea bargain without understanding the consequences. They got married when she turned 18. Their son and my son are best friends. He must stay 300 yards from any school, can't go to PTA meetings, and has never met his son's teachers. Branding this guy for life is idiotic, since he is no danger to anyone, but that doesn't mean that the registry should be abolished for real predators.

    11. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to a 'Right to be Honest', where any of various services would continue to provide factual, accurate information about individuals that such individuals would rather they did not?

      Wow. This still somewhat amazes me, people would want really unflattering, or derogatory, or prejudicial info about themselves suppressed, but the early examples seemed, IIRC, to be public figures wanting to 'delete' reporting on convictions, as one example.

      Sure. I just say 'no'. But it's the EU, and be sure this is to serve the rich and connected.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    12. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      "One solution to the sex offender registry is MORE information"

      Look, if we don't want these people to be able to live then we should change the punishment to be one that that handles them permanently in some way. But what we should not do is set a lighter punishment because we don't want the hassle and expense and then create lists and witch hunts to haunt people who have already taken their punishment and are trying to move on with their lives.

      "Perhaps we should distinguish between these."

      Or we could go back to the original logic of having been punished erasing the crime and people having a second chance. Our parental instincts make us want to protect children more strongly than everyone else but that is a purely emotional reaction and if we don't stop building policy around it people will just continue to manipulate us with it again and again. Some of things we okay because we can't bear the idea of the possibility of a child being harmed actually allow for a lot of systemic small evils that may add up to dramatically more harm overall than a handful of incidents no matter how tragic. Sometimes we lose sight of that.

      "One guy may be on the list for raping a four year old. Another guy may be on it for urinating in a public park."

      And even that is pretending being found guilty means actually being guilty. As an adult I don't really run into police very often, at least not in that kind of encounter but as a young punk teenager my experience was that being arrested and punished, especially as part of a plea bargain, is a thing which happens with great frequency to innocent people or people who were present but not the real perpetrator. Police only tend to look beyond the obvious if they think someone is pulling something, they rarely look beyond the obvious on behalf of the innocent.

      But more information won't help, people who read the why are rare and many places will simply have policies against being on the list without making special exceptions to consider the rationale.

      I am a parent and when an alert popped up just two days ago I couldn't help but look at it despite having always disagreed with the entire concept of making publicly available those who have already served sentences. I checked out the address and it turned out to be a hotel... I then checked other listed offenders and found clusters around hotels. I'd already lifted by phone to push out to next door (where I know a few public officials are active) the idea of banning sex offenders from registering addresses at hotels which is a local ordinance in some places before I caught myself. It is an easy trap to fall into.

    13. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Or we could go back to the original logic of having been punished erasing the crime and people having a second chance.

      We tried that. The problem is that if a bank robber robs another bank, the bank is out a bit of money. If a child rapist rapes another child, another life is destroyed.

      The problem is equating child rape with public urination. That is what our current system does.

    14. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by antdude · · Score: 1

      Wealthy can afford many things. :/

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    15. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "We tried that."

      What do you mean. I've tried a lot of things. Some worked 100%, some less, some none.

      Should we still be 'trying' it ?

    16. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps we should distinguish between these."

      Or we could go back to the original logic of having been punished erasing the crime and people having a second chance.

      Second chance? Yes. Absolutely. Erasing the crime? That doesn't happen. Actions have consequences, and this is not a video game, and you cannot reload from a save point. There's no going back. Punished? That's the fundamental problem with this whole scenario. We're still stuck on punishment, and how that's supposed to be some kind of solution. But people don't grow up to hurt people because they had their emotional needs fulfilled during development. Maybe punishment has its place, but it should not be the focus. Rehabilitation of both the individual and the environment that created them should be the focus. Punishment is there to make the victims feel better, but if someone else's suffering makes them feel better, then they need help too.

      But more information won't help, people who read the why are rare and many places will simply have policies against being on the list without making special exceptions to consider the rationale.

      More information does help. When a little information is dressed up as a lot, though, it can do harm. If you simply put the offense for which they were actually placed on the list next to their name it would help some people, and hurt others. You'd really need a brief analysis of each case to be attached to their name to actually provide for people to make informed decisions. Only- who writes the synopses?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:The Right to Rewrite History by george14215 · · Score: 1

      I thought there were "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions for these types of relationships.

  2. Re:Google is evil by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    There really isn't an alternative open platform.

  3. Right to Be Forgotten? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I never quite understood inventing rights like this. How far does it extend? If I write something in my diary about something stupid a classmate did when he was a kid, can the classmate demand I erase it?

    What about if I tell the story to my wife?

    What if I write about the story in a letter to another friend?

    If I write a blog post about it that my ten followers see?

    If I write a memoir about it in my autobiography?

    Where do you draw the line? And how do you enforce this without taking away my right to truthfully share information?

    IMO, the right to be forgotten doesn't exist.

  4. This is why Google has got to be broken up by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    One company should not have this kind of power. The robber barons of the 19th Century only dreamed of this kind of power.

    Google must be broken up. Not into two pieces but into a thousand.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:This is why Google has got to be broken up by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Fragmenting search makes no sense.

      But forcing Google to either firewall or divest of things such as Maps, GMail, Drive, Docs, etc, makes some sense. Let them act as independent lines of business, to enforce privacy features, and basically stop doing evil across the enterprise.

      Make each service/feature/app do their own evil. We can deal with the lizards easier than the dragon.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  5. One of the dumbest laws by jwymanm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do you have the right to be forgotten in books? In movies? In news stories? In schools? In songs? Since the history of man.. What the hell is EU thinking. This shouldn't even be a thing.

    1. Re:One of the dumbest laws by grumpy-cowboy · · Score: 2

      +1 Like the first post said : The Right to Rewrite History. Nice Orwellian future.

      --
      Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
    2. Re:One of the dumbest laws by SysPig · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We do not live in a binary world. Shades of grey exist everywhere, and this is no exception. The debate should be over where to draw the line, and who gets to draw it - not whether it should exist at all.

      Let's take the examples you provide. Which of them allows millions of devices, operated by billions of people or with complete autonomy, to access everything associated with your name in seconds? Even this information is not equal to your examples. The source of much of it is near impossible to determine, the accuracy far more suspect and in many cases it's impossible to change that which is in error.

      You know what else has existed in nearly the entire history of man? Privacy by obscurity. The fact that information could have been accessed doesn't mean it was. There was never a need to codify such things, as the level of current intrusion couldn't possibly have been predicted by anyone until relatively recent times - after which, it was too late.

    3. Re:One of the dumbest laws by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, Jwymanm,
      as you ask. I google for you and find a 35 year old hit that you as a 10 year old stole a candy.
      In the EU you have the right, that this is forgotten.

      I tried to google for a movie where your name is mentioned and includes a crime, I failed. You have any hints? ....

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:One of the dumbest laws by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Watch out for Orwellian language.

      A right is something that requires inaction on others' parts. Don't suppress your speech, don't beat you up for your religion, etc.

      A privilege is something that requires action on others' parts. Give you welfare, help you get into college, etc.

      Here we have "the right to be forgotten" which requires search engines to take positive, perhaps even Herculean steps. That's clearly a privilege and when you have people calling privileges rights, you can bet that they're up to no good.

      BTW, Five Eyes will still have search access - you just won't be able to also search and find what they can find. It's pretty easy to see how incentives align on this one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:One of the dumbest laws by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Fun business model that exists: some companies scrap mugshots and arrest records from public databases. Doesn't matter if the charges are later dropped or you're found innocent. Or if they make a mistake they'll link someone else to your name (and say "mug shot not available"") They use SEO to make sure that those are the first responses when people Google your name. For a mere few hundred dollars, they'll remove your data from their system.

      I don't know if you think such a model should exist, but I don't think it should. Seems like a legal restriction helps.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    6. Re:One of the dumbest laws by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Many courts in the US, realizing that making public records accessible, via the Internet, made them ACTUALLY accessible. And letting these 'public' records be 'public' when you had to trudge down to the courthouse and pay for them kept access to a minimum.

      Now, with the Internet,. and electronic documents, plenty of courts (and other governmental entities) have decided to erect similar barriers to easy access. They really didn't want these records to be so available.

      If you known anyone involved in local or state government, open meetings laws cause them a great deal of inconvenience. It's a pain to have to refrain from casual discussions with colleagues or others regarding official business. Often they solve that problem by making everything an executive session, or ignoring the law. Which works until something happens that get attention, and then they have to obstruct the inquiries and wait it out...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:One of the dumbest laws by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The debate should be over where to draw the line, and who gets to draw it - not whether it should exist at all.

      Great, then let's not put the cart before the horse. Settle the first issue before imposing the second. And really, the question whether it should exist at all is perfectly valid. Cui bono?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:One of the dumbest laws by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      The EU has the right to pass any kind of law their sovereign citizens will put up with. They have no right to try to extend those laws beyond their own borders. If they don't want their citizens to have access to information people in the rest of the world have let then put up a firewall to prevent their citizens from accessing the information. It's worked so well for China.

      No one has the right to rewrite history. You are responsible for your actions. We all make mistakes. Own them, don't try to hide them.

      I have a right to information that protects me, my family, my business, my country. You do not have a right to keep that information from me so that you can continue to act badly.

      People deserve a second chance. But contingent on the second chance is that other people realize that it's a second chance. A second chance is a product of mercy, not ignorance.

    9. Re:One of the dumbest laws by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Privacy is a very modern concept. When most people lived in small towns privacy was non-existent. This was one reason people could do business based on a person's word. If someone gave their word then reneged you knew they were not trustworthy. That was shared far and wide and no one would do business with them.

      It wasn't until more modern times that you needed an iron clad contract to make someone keep their word under governmental force. This became necessary because some amount of "privacy by obscurity" came into existence due to increase mobility and population. Make no mistake though. Most people still never traveled more than a few miles from where they were born and there everyone knew who was "the good guys and who was the bad guys" as a cop friend of my father use to say about people around the old neighborhood.

      So now technology has merely caught up with the way it's been for most of human history and those who have taken advantage of "privacy by obscurity" for the last couple of generations want to continue to be able to do that, to the detriment of those who this information would protect.

  6. VPN by temcat · · Score: 1

    Well I guess this means it's going to be possible to get the "forgotten" info using a VPN with a server located outside of EU and other asshole countries (my own included) that require the enforcement of this bullshit "right".

    1. Re:VPN by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Well I guess this means it's going to be possible to get the "forgotten" info using a VPN with a server located outside of EU and other asshole countries (my own included) that require the enforcement of this bullshit "right".

      The problem with "The Right to be Forgotten" is that short of walling off portions of the Internet, it won't work.

      As well, it's a short hop skip and a jump to come up with all manner of rationales that certain information on the network is not to be allowed.

      Seeing where the EU is heading, I would suggest that the EU use it's superior knowledge and moral imperative, and implement that wall. They can produce a 21st century internet version of the Volksempfänger and be blissful that any and all information can be blocked as the EU sees fit.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  7. More Like Right to Censor by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    When information is shared on the Internet it's too late, you'll never be able to completely remove it. Imagine trying to tell the public to disregard say the election of a politician or something "important" that happened in history. And google is just a search engine. It's like being upset at someone and trying to force your local phone company to de-list them from the white pages. Google despite their vast size is NOT the Internet. It's one of the most powerful search engines and tools you can use to find stuff on the Internet. The sooner people understand this the better.

  8. Legislation with unintended side effects by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "right to be forgotten" is typical of legislation where no one thought about the side effects.

    First, it only applies to particular search engines. There is no general applicability. In particular, the source information remains online - it just can't be found through Google or Bing.

    Second, in attempting to have this right applied globally, EU courts are setting an excellent precedent to have other countries determine what content EU citizens can see. After all, if censorship flows in one direction, it will flow in the other. Does the EU really want Saudia Arabia determining what web content is allowable in the EU?

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Legislation with unintended side effects by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The "right to be forgotten" is typical of legislation where no one thought about the side effects.

      Boy howdy this! We have right to be forgotten, we have the EU mandated Articles 11 and 13. The EU is working it's way toward total control of the internet. Anyone want to bet they won't be screaming about a list of books that they want to be erased from the internet soon?

      After all, if censorship flows in one direction, it will flow in the other. Does the EU really want Saudia Arabia determining what web content is allowable in the EU?

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

      This has likely not even occured to these folks. But given the history of the area, they aren't about to change their thinking about the world. I would suggest that they set up a few common points that all of the internet traffic enters and exits, and implement whatever control and censorship they see fit, and not try to enforce the triumph of their will upon the rest of the world.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Legislation with unintended side effects by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Does the EU really want Saudia Arabia determining what web content is allowable in the EU?"

      The honest answer to this question will probably surprise you.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  9. Re:Google is evil by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    You can always just root the phone and sideload applications but by open I'm referring to code.

  10. Google vs Everyone: Round 1 by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Everyone loses.

  11. Contrary to settled law and practice by davecb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In most of the world, if a court says to, for example, "seal" someone's juvenile records, it doesn't expect newspapers to erase them from their archives, but merely to not cite (old form of "link to") them in current publications. Changing to that would be a huge change in settled law, and would cause angry litigation over censorship.

    in the original Spanish case, Mario Costeja González specifically asked for the old, obsolete articles to be added to the site's ROBOTS.TXT file, which is the modern equivalent.

    As I submitted to the Canadian privacy commission, this is what sites in Canada should do, is within the powers of the commissioner to order, and has no special cost to innocent third parties such as Google.

    Canadian legal sites like CanLII (the Canadian Legal Information Institute) already do this. See https://leaflessca.wordpress.c...

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  12. I'm Mark David Chapman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and I demand my right to be forgotten.

  13. if the shoe fits ... by epine · · Score: 1

    Google shouldn't have to apply the aptly so-called right to be forgotten ...

    FTFY.

  14. Re:Google is evil by nnull · · Score: 1

    Could you give me a list of brand new US sold phones (Like at least from 2018) that I can root and are not gimped please? (Gimped as in if I root, the camera doesn't work, or certain things don't work on the phone because the manufacturer feels like I should be punished for rooting my device).

    Yeah, I thought so.

    .

  15. Re:Google is evil by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is. It's called carrying a dumbphone and a laptop running GNU/Linux, and running all your apps on the laptop.

  16. Re:What is a "Global law"? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

    GDPR.

    If your website is accessed form the EU, expect them to demand you obey. How they enforce that will still end up hurting you, no matter who does the enforcement.

    Or choose your elected officials more carefully, with an eye towards those who will defend you and not just talk about it.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  17. Yes you have by aepervius · · Score: 2

    Frankly, I keep repeating myself but here we go: until recentely, facts were not easily researchable. And so fact could be forgotten. Because to find out those facts you had to spend QUITE a bit of research. e.g. if you had a bankruptcy, and search for a job, the guy there hiring you could not find with a few keystroke you HAD that bankruptcy. If he wanted research you he had to hire somebody and pay hard cash to have that research done. Essentially baring important financial job or secret service nigh nobody did that. EFFECTIVELY society forgot by having fact hard to be found. Google changed that. All taboo, all stuff you did are never forgotten and saved forever easy to access at a keystroke. That is especially true if your name is not common. That law changed that, by having certain type of facts pertaining to normal persons (public persona do not benefit from that law) havign a right to be deindexed, forcing you (at least in the spirit of the law) into a old fashionned research. That is also WHY the law pertain to serarch engine only ! Because while you have a right to not be indexed, you have no right to bury the facts. Thus the original source are not touched.

    A society which cannot forget is a merciless society , one where you can't have freedom : freedom means touching the side of the road, not the middle. But the side of the road is WHERE the taboo are and people have the most to lose. A society which do not forget is a society suppressing everybody. Think of branding/tattooing an A on your forehead so that everybody know you had adulterous relationship : this is essentially what google do in some case.

    You want to live in a society where you are branded forever ? most of us do not want. And before you trot out the crime side : in EU we are strong on rehabilitation, and frankly you can change and have a second chance once you paid your debt. But this is nigh impossible if once your anmed is typed in google the first link is what your crime was. Or worst what you were accused of , but never condemened for , or even acquitted. Chance is nobody will look at the link on the second page showing your acquital.


    Once you think about it, the law is not stupid, but reestablishing a status quo we had a few decade ago, and it is a good law to give people second chance. Now naturally you are into crushing people at their first fault , even if acquitted, and never allowing them to stand up again, well sure the law may sound stupid. But you better hope that you never get accused of something falsely, or never have a financial problem which stay in google or anything which may bring people to look down at you. If you do, I hope that somebody do a nelson's "HAHA" pointing finger at you.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Yes you have by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Let me repeat myself. Such barriers to information have only existed for a few hundred years at most. Before that most people lived in the same place and everyone new everything about everyone. True, it was possible to move to try to get away from that knowledge, but in most cases knowing who you could trust and who you couldn't was and is a valuable thing.

      Further, in most cases when someone needed to deal with someone they didn't know, they required a letter of introduction, references, which could be checked, and other records.

      This is the natural order of things, not the "privacy by obscurity" that the last few centuries allowed to happen.

      My right to know who I am dealing with, whether I can trust them, if they are safe to be around trumps their right to obscurity.

  18. Re:What is a "Global law"? by vakuona · · Score: 1

    If I was an American company, I would put a notice on the website banning Europeans from using my website and asking them to confirm that they were not accessing the website from Europe before using it. If any European then sued, I would point them to the notice clearly forbidding them from using the website, and would countersue on the basis that they lied to access the website.

  19. Re:Google is evil by nnull · · Score: 1

    What new phones have you rooted that doesn't gimp your camera or other things on the phone? Please provide me at least one. Because it definitely isn't the Samsung or Sony. Sony lets you root your phone, but all pictures are blank after you do. LG V40, we're still waiting on word if that can be rooted still. The only one that is semi-functional is the Oneplus. Xiaomi would have been a good one, but they joined the gimping bandwagon ever since Ubuntu shutdown their phone attempt. As for Librem-5, I'm not holding my breath. Been a while, still no release yet.