Because "right to forget" is a specific legal construction that, aside from the small differences of location, jurisdiction and domain, applies to a specific subset of information in specific circumstances following a specific procedure.
Except for the part where this specific case in this specific article is specifically talking about blocking it globally, which I have expressed is the specific reason why I'm against it. If it was just Canada, fine. Stay in your own jurisdiction. If that means your enforcement is ineffective, that's not my problem (but I'm repeating old arguments at this point and they haven't convinced you so far, so hey).
This case was about denying easy access to an e-commerce entity that has already been found to be in violation of the law.
Hmm...it looks like why the don't just shut them down since they've already been found guilty is for jurisdictional reasons? If they have domains hosted in other countries, they would have to go through channels to get those taken down...which comes back around to my same arguments anyway.
Uh, not just "fine". That's kinda the elephant in the room. If the judge had references that right and somehow applied it to Canada, then you would have a point. But he doesn't.
I guess I'm getting rather confused what we're actually arguing about, then. Pragmatically speaking, blocking this site globally has the same effect whether you call it Right to Forget or That Law Bob Passed Last Friday. While it may not be as directly comparable to free speech issues as e.g. a blog, (U.S.) courts have demonstrated that they are fond of bending precedents to fit their agendas. I suspect I've gotten myself into another "technically right/idealistic vs. pragmatic" argument here.
I stand by my words that mentioning it in the summary was just click-bait, because the submitter knew that it is controversial.
Yeah, you probably have a point there. We have a tendency to see stuff like this in summaries that the editor/submitter probably threw in thinking "hey, isn't this thing like this other thing" and somebody responds "FUCK YOU no it's not the same at all!"
You're still arguing from your initial presumption that the "needs" of his country take priority over those of the rest of the entire world. You can argue eight ways from Sunday from this foundation and you're not likely to change my mind on the matter. There's little point in me reading his arguments through, because I can already guess what they are from the summary/article/you and I reject them on principle. This seems to be what is making you so angry.
I'm fairly sure the majority of that part of the 99.5% who know what domain names are would agree to that.
You think the majority of Internet users would consent to some random judge in a foreign country telling them what they can and can't access? You give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
This is not a court case about some opinion being posted online or some unfavorable blog posting.
I didn't say it was...
This is not about the european "right to be forgotten" at all, that was merely a click-bait blurb added into the summary.
Well, they seem to be saying that they should be able to have the information removed from the Internet, so perhaps you could explain to me how it's really any different, other than being in Canada instead of Europe. (I skimmed the article and they point out that Europe's right to forget doesn't extend out of Europe, fine. But I still stand by my earlier post.)
I would prefer that if you're going to swear at me, you at least make a point in the process.
I was going on the assumption that they are going to implement Right to Forget one way or another and it was just a question of implementation. Personally, I don't see that it's a good idea in the first place, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
But given the two alternatives available to a judge to choose from at this time, his choice was the better one.
Better one with an aim to accomplish his objective, sure. Better in regards to the rights of the other 99.5% of the world's population who *don't* live in his country? No.
It's probably a problem of perception, but from what I hear it seems the Muslims shout the loudest about it. And they also control the government in a number of countries, whereas the Westboro Baptists are just a couple dozen cunts in some random community with no political power.
Live feed? Or was that a rather grisly pun intended?:-/
The proper approach is to block them locally. If people find ways to route around it, too bad, so sad. If you want to screw with your own people, fine. If you try to abide by all parties' standards worldwide, I guarantee you one of the first ones in line will be certain theocracies blocking all our porn, probably 90% of our TV/movies (since they're all sexual one way or another, really), and all religions but their own.
Or Option B (AKA "the Muslim option"*)--we just cut off Canada from the Internet. That should have the same effect, right?
* I assume I'll get modded down for this, but it seems like the only way to solve the whole "how dare you post pictures of Allah/Mohammed/anything we don't like" issue without just removing the offending content, the idea of which I find repugnant (the removing). Although it still seems like a long shot from previous articles where the viewpoint sounded like "just because we can't see it, we still know it exists."
(If they were found guilty, it should be in the public record that they fucked up. If they were found innocent, it should be in the public record that the accusations were unfounded.)
If it's not possible to block/remove the data for just your country, so instead you have to block/remove it for the whole world, I think this demonstrates that the "right to be forgotten" is an unworkable idea. Why should your "right to erase the past" infringe on my right to be informed? Screw that.
Isn't this whole thing because people put undue weight on Internet slander anyway? We're trying to use a technological band-aid to fix a social problem.
Yeah: In 2010, 36.1% Conservative, 29.0% Labour, 23.0% Liberal Democrat. In 2005, 35.2% Labour, 32.4% Conservative, 22.0% Liberal Democrat
Presumably we're working on different definitions of "third party" here. I'm not saying the party that got the third-highest votes, I'm saying parties that currently in no way compete with the top 2. This is why drawing direct comparisons between the U.S. and other countries doesn't really work a lot of the time. We would KILL for a third party that takes almost a quarter of the vote.
A) I don't follow UK politics. B) I thought the UK had 3 or 4 major political parties so the situation really is not analogous to the U.S. at all (if true...for definitions of "major party" > 8% of the vote).
That's pretty much what I said, just with more words. Sorry, been paid by the letter for too long it seems, verily [blah blah ramble ramble waste my time TL;DR sarcasm yaaaaay]
More accurately, you said, "It doesn't work because enough people don't do it, therefore enough people will never do it, so you shouldn't care, so just give up."
I like my way better. It's more constructive: "It doesn't work because enough people aren't doing it...but we can't control other people. We can only control our own vote, and if we're lucky maybe convince a couple other people to vote the same way."
A federal judge's order on Friday could force the U.S. government to reveal more information about its widespread collection of citizens' phone records.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the federal district court in Oakland, California, ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review.
People from all philosophies, religions, and creeds can become mass murderers if you give the philosophy enough time. Citing one particular person (Stalin) as an example why the entire philosophy is evil is rather shaky.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Even if you don't go in for that religious stuff, some of us have noticed that really rich people only tend to care less about their money when they're getting older and considering how they're going to be remembered.
"They'll simply change" is never so cut and dried. Change is hard.
Slashdot Mirror
Because "right to forget" is a specific legal construction that, aside from the small differences of location, jurisdiction and domain, applies to a specific subset of information in specific circumstances following a specific procedure.
Except for the part where this specific case in this specific article is specifically talking about blocking it globally, which I have expressed is the specific reason why I'm against it. If it was just Canada, fine. Stay in your own jurisdiction. If that means your enforcement is ineffective, that's not my problem (but I'm repeating old arguments at this point and they haven't convinced you so far, so hey).
This case was about denying easy access to an e-commerce entity that has already been found to be in violation of the law.
Hmm...it looks like why the don't just shut them down since they've already been found guilty is for jurisdictional reasons? If they have domains hosted in other countries, they would have to go through channels to get those taken down...which comes back around to my same arguments anyway.
Uh, not just "fine". That's kinda the elephant in the room. If the judge had references that right and somehow applied it to Canada, then you would have a point. But he doesn't.
I guess I'm getting rather confused what we're actually arguing about, then. Pragmatically speaking, blocking this site globally has the same effect whether you call it Right to Forget or That Law Bob Passed Last Friday. While it may not be as directly comparable to free speech issues as e.g. a blog, (U.S.) courts have demonstrated that they are fond of bending precedents to fit their agendas. I suspect I've gotten myself into another "technically right/idealistic vs. pragmatic" argument here.
I stand by my words that mentioning it in the summary was just click-bait, because the submitter knew that it is controversial.
Yeah, you probably have a point there. We have a tendency to see stuff like this in summaries that the editor/submitter probably threw in thinking "hey, isn't this thing like this other thing" and somebody responds "FUCK YOU no it's not the same at all!"
You're still arguing from your initial presumption that the "needs" of his country take priority over those of the rest of the entire world. You can argue eight ways from Sunday from this foundation and you're not likely to change my mind on the matter. There's little point in me reading his arguments through, because I can already guess what they are from the summary/article/you and I reject them on principle. This seems to be what is making you so angry.
I'm fairly sure the majority of that part of the 99.5% who know what domain names are would agree to that.
You think the majority of Internet users would consent to some random judge in a foreign country telling them what they can and can't access? You give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
This is not a court case about some opinion being posted online or some unfavorable blog posting.
I didn't say it was...
This is not about the european "right to be forgotten" at all, that was merely a click-bait blurb added into the summary.
Well, they seem to be saying that they should be able to have the information removed from the Internet, so perhaps you could explain to me how it's really any different, other than being in Canada instead of Europe. (I skimmed the article and they point out that Europe's right to forget doesn't extend out of Europe, fine. But I still stand by my earlier post.)
I would prefer that if you're going to swear at me, you at least make a point in the process.
Or just finds soccer really incredibly boring
EMP? :D
I was going on the assumption that they are going to implement Right to Forget one way or another and it was just a question of implementation. Personally, I don't see that it's a good idea in the first place, but I'm open to arguments to the contrary.
But given the two alternatives available to a judge to choose from at this time, his choice was the better one.
Better one with an aim to accomplish his objective, sure. Better in regards to the rights of the other 99.5% of the world's population who *don't* live in his country? No.
that will after a short period burst out of their chests to fill the world with yet more lawyers.
Ew, and have more lawyers? No way.
And people wonder why Unicode is so hard to do...we can't even keep them straight in real life.
It's probably a problem of perception, but from what I hear it seems the Muslims shout the loudest about it. And they also control the government in a number of countries, whereas the Westboro Baptists are just a couple dozen cunts in some random community with no political power.
Would people actually benefit from seeing (some subset of) things that offend them? A lot of those things for a lot of people are social prejudices.
life-feed
Live feed? Or was that a rather grisly pun intended? :-/
The proper approach is to block them locally. If people find ways to route around it, too bad, so sad. If you want to screw with your own people, fine. If you try to abide by all parties' standards worldwide, I guarantee you one of the first ones in line will be certain theocracies blocking all our porn, probably 90% of our TV/movies (since they're all sexual one way or another, really), and all religions but their own.
Or Option B (AKA "the Muslim option"*)--we just cut off Canada from the Internet. That should have the same effect, right?
* I assume I'll get modded down for this, but it seems like the only way to solve the whole "how dare you post pictures of Allah/Mohammed/anything we don't like" issue without just removing the offending content, the idea of which I find repugnant (the removing). Although it still seems like a long shot from previous articles where the viewpoint sounded like "just because we can't see it, we still know it exists."
They shouldn't. Don't make the mistake of thinking all Americans approve of their government's actions.
So you're saying authorities *should* have power outside their jurisdictions? That seems like a pretty bold and sweeping (and problematic) statement.
Being an expert does not guarantee you make a good decision.
wasDefendantFoundGuilty ? whyShouldTheyHaveARightToBeForgotten : nobodyShouldCareAnyway;
(If they were found guilty, it should be in the public record that they fucked up. If they were found innocent, it should be in the public record that the accusations were unfounded.)
I must be missing something.
If it's not possible to block/remove the data for just your country, so instead you have to block/remove it for the whole world, I think this demonstrates that the "right to be forgotten" is an unworkable idea. Why should your "right to erase the past" infringe on my right to be informed? Screw that.
Isn't this whole thing because people put undue weight on Internet slander anyway? We're trying to use a technological band-aid to fix a social problem.
Yeah:
In 2010, 36.1% Conservative, 29.0% Labour, 23.0% Liberal Democrat.
In 2005, 35.2% Labour, 32.4% Conservative, 22.0% Liberal Democrat
Presumably we're working on different definitions of "third party" here. I'm not saying the party that got the third-highest votes, I'm saying parties that currently in no way compete with the top 2. This is why drawing direct comparisons between the U.S. and other countries doesn't really work a lot of the time. We would KILL for a third party that takes almost a quarter of the vote.
A) I don't follow UK politics.
B) I thought the UK had 3 or 4 major political parties so the situation really is not analogous to the U.S. at all (if true...for definitions of "major party" > 8% of the vote).
A guy named "Opportunist" is arguing that it doesn't matter anyway? Next we'll have Nietzscheans arguing for romance.
That's pretty much what I said, just with more words. Sorry, been paid by the letter for too long it seems, verily [blah blah ramble ramble waste my time TL;DR sarcasm yaaaaay]
More accurately, you said, "It doesn't work because enough people don't do it, therefore enough people will never do it, so you shouldn't care, so just give up."
I like my way better. It's more constructive: "It doesn't work because enough people aren't doing it...but we can't control other people. We can only control our own vote, and if we're lucky maybe convince a couple other people to vote the same way."
A federal judge's order on Friday could force the U.S. government to reveal more information about its widespread collection of citizens' phone records.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the federal district court in Oakland, California, ordered the Department of Justice to produce 66 pages of documents for her review.
Literally the first 2 paragraphs of the article.
"He slipped on an icy patch."
"But he was decapitated!"
"It was a *very* icy patch."
No no, it's the legislature that take away your rights. Obama just signs the bills.
People from all philosophies, religions, and creeds can become mass murderers if you give the philosophy enough time. Citing one particular person (Stalin) as an example why the entire philosophy is evil is rather shaky.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
Even if you don't go in for that religious stuff, some of us have noticed that really rich people only tend to care less about their money when they're getting older and considering how they're going to be remembered.
"They'll simply change" is never so cut and dried. Change is hard.