Aside from the peer-review process, what do these journals offer the scientific community that they can't get for free on the Internet? What prevents the scientific community from conducting it's own peer review process, at minimal cost, and publishing results for free on the Internet?
No wonder Elsevier seems worried about the future of its business model.
My guess is that they are doing this in exchange for something
Given the Obama Administration's involvement, I suspect they're doing it under some kind of threat. It's part of a growing trend: regulation without legislation and enforcement completely divorced from the process of law,
"No the.com domain belongs to the US..com,.net,.gov,.mil,.edu,.and org are ALL US domains."
Some of those (gov, mil, and edu) are indeed US domains, but the rest only "belong" to the US insofar as they are presently controlled by private companies subject to US jurisdiction. The United States is using its jurisdiction in this regard as a proxy for regulating the content of foreign websites, which -- for those of us who feel that DNS is the wrong level at which to regulate such things -- is rather unfortunate.
What if the entertainment industry had never contributed money to the Obama campaign?
Would Megaupload have been shut down? Would Kim Dotcom have been arrested? Would ACTA have become an international agreement? Would ISPs have volunteered to adopt a "six strikes" policy against customers accused of copyright infringement? Would the culture of IP maximalism so evident in the Obama administration exist at all?
If allowing people to speak is permissive, preventing others from speaking is restrictive. In a free society, it is the responsibility of those who would restrict the actions of others to show that such restrictions are necessary. If you wish is to shut me up, you better have a damn good reason. Your desire to be forgotten is not a good reason.
You answer with merely another statement of personal opinion (in radical disagreement with Biblical authority for example), that a slave has a moral right to freedom. They do? Where does this moral right come from?
At this point I feel I have no choice but to dismiss you as an idiot.
Bob could just as easily claim that in most cases a person's right to shoot their mouth of is not a good enough reason to invade someone else's privacy. On what basis can I adjudicate between Adrian and Bob's opinion here?
On the basis of Bob's reasonable expectation of privacy and Adrian's right to speak. I do not have the right to enter Bob's home and reveal whatever I find there, but I do have the right to disseminate information that is legitimately available to me, with some exceptions according to Bob's reasonable need or expectation of privacy. A so-called "right to be forgotten" is, for the most part, neither reasonable nor necessary.
A legal right is (relatively) easy to apprehend and it's source is clear. What on earth though is a moral right?! And where, outside your personal predilections, does it come from?
American plantation owners once had the legal right to own slaves. Once you understand why that is immoral, you will also understand the difference between a moral and a legal right. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine where a slave's moral right to freedom comes from.
The right to privacy is a basic human right outranking the right to freedom of speech.
Nonsense. The right to speak is the right share one's knowledge and experiences. The right to privacy is the right to prevent others from speaking. Without good reason, the former must trump the latter.
No, it should a case by case question of whether the damage that information is causing outweighs the good brought about by its dissemination.
You conveniently left out the bit where I said: "... except in special cases where privacy is essential".
The point is not that "I can say what I want in all cases", but that preventing me from speaking is a significant enough restriction as to demand a very good reason for it. A presumed "right to be forgotten" is not such a reason.
Sure and absolute freedom of speech ain't a human right either.
I agree. It's just that no one should be forbidden to speak without a very good reason for it. Protecting one person's perceived right to privacy is not, in most cases, a good enough reason to force another to keep quiet.
Different cultures and jurisdictions will potentially strike a different balance.
But not necessarily a correct balance.
There is a right to be forgotten if the law says there is.
There's a right to kill if the law says there is. There's a right to discriminate against others if the law says there is. A legal right is not a moral right.
I think it should be left to the people in the various jurisdictions, as electors of their lawmakers... to determine what works best for them.
Certain rights are important enough not to be left to the electorate. Such rights should never be subordinate to democracy.
sure, in the US. which is not the EU. so this is relevant, how?
Freedom of speech is a human right. From a moral standpoint, jurisdiction is irrelevant: Europeans have as much right to free speech as Americans do, even if the law doesn't recognize it.
"There is if we decide to make it one. You may as well say there's no such thing as rights."
A legal right is not the same thing as a human right. A legal right can be anything the law defines as such. A human right, on the other hand, has more to do with ethics than it has to do with law.
"more importantly, 'absolute privacy' is a strawman? who's talking about absolute privacy?"
When I say "absolute privacy is not a human right", it's not to argue against claims to the contrary but to avoid making the unqualified claim that privacy is not a human right. Humans do have a right to privacy, but such a right must be narrowly construed in light of competing rights such as freedom of speech. The quote you've offered is an excellent example of a case where free speech should trump a perceived right to privacy.
On the other hand, when privacy and free speech are in conflict and there's no urgent and compelling reason to publish the information, privacy should always trump free speech.
No, it shouldn't. Thuthful information should always be fair game, except in certain special case where privacy is essential.
The right to be forgotten? What about the responsibility to keep one's own private information private?
I have no problem with regulating the dissemination of private information held in confidence by online services, but information published by users or by people not affiliated with the online services in question should not receive any such protection in all but a few special cases (medical and financial information, for example).
When privacy and free speech are in conflict and there's no urgent and compelling reason to keep information private, free speech should always trump privacy.
Has the content only been removed from all of Google's websites, or just Google India?
It's scary to think of what the Interenet would look like if each and every website had to follow the laws of each and every country. I know the fact that Google has facilities in India puts significant pressure on them to comply, but the thought of being bound by the numerous idiotic laws around the world is extremely worrisome.
Google is apparently adopting a strategy of censoring content on a per-country basis. That's their privilege, but I hope it doesn't become the norm.
Taking down domains without a trial, secretly negotiating international IP treaties (ACTA), threatening American ISPs into adopting a "six strikes" policy...
Judging by its actions, IP enforcement is clearly the Obama Administration's top priority. Is it corruption, or is it just plain disregard for justice and the due process of law?
Is Google anticipating the worldwide adoption of domain-blocking regulations in the style of SOPA, PIPA, and Homeland Security's domain name seizures? Google could do per-country blocking without redirecting requests, so I presume the intent is to allow for country-wide blocking of particular foreign domains while still allowing for country-specific links to censored content.
I shudder to think this might someday become standard operating procedure for websites around the world.
first off they market themselves as data backup system not a file locker
Dropbox is not so much a data backup system as it is a way to share files between computers. As for it not being a "file locker" service, Dropbox does in fact allow its users to share their files with the public at large by placing them inside a special folder.
second they don't show up in the search engines when you look for illegal content
That might change in the near future, now that the government has shut down Megaupload.
Is there some reason why the DMCA's safe harbor provisions don't apply to Megaupload, or has the Federal Government decided those provisions are too inconvenient and therefore do not apply? Will Dropbox become the US Government's next target?
Slashdot Mirror
Aside from the peer-review process, what do these journals offer the scientific community that they can't get for free on the Internet? What prevents the scientific community from conducting it's own peer review process, at minimal cost, and publishing results for free on the Internet?
No wonder Elsevier seems worried about the future of its business model.
Given the Obama Administration's involvement, I suspect they're doing it under some kind of threat. It's part of a growing trend: regulation without legislation and enforcement completely divorced from the process of law,
Some of those (gov, mil, and edu) are indeed US domains, but the rest only "belong" to the US insofar as they are presently controlled by private companies subject to US jurisdiction. The United States is using its jurisdiction in this regard as a proxy for regulating the content of foreign websites, which -- for those of us who feel that DNS is the wrong level at which to regulate such things -- is rather unfortunate.
What if the entertainment industry had never contributed money to the Obama campaign?
Would Megaupload have been shut down? Would Kim Dotcom have been arrested? Would ACTA have become an international agreement? Would ISPs have volunteered to adopt a "six strikes" policy against customers accused of copyright infringement? Would the culture of IP maximalism so evident in the Obama administration exist at all?
A name like Zune would kill any product.
A legal reality without proper justification.
If allowing people to speak is permissive, preventing others from speaking is restrictive. In a free society, it is the responsibility of those who would restrict the actions of others to show that such restrictions are necessary. If you wish is to shut me up, you better have a damn good reason. Your desire to be forgotten is not a good reason.
At this point I feel I have no choice but to dismiss you as an idiot.
On the basis of Bob's reasonable expectation of privacy and Adrian's right to speak. I do not have the right to enter Bob's home and reveal whatever I find there, but I do have the right to disseminate information that is legitimately available to me, with some exceptions according to Bob's reasonable need or expectation of privacy. A so-called "right to be forgotten" is, for the most part, neither reasonable nor necessary.
American plantation owners once had the legal right to own slaves. Once you understand why that is immoral, you will also understand the difference between a moral and a legal right. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to determine where a slave's moral right to freedom comes from.
Nonsense. The right to speak is the right share one's knowledge and experiences. The right to privacy is the right to prevent others from speaking. Without good reason, the former must trump the latter.
You conveniently left out the bit where I said: "... except in special cases where privacy is essential".
The point is not that "I can say what I want in all cases", but that preventing me from speaking is a significant enough restriction as to demand a very good reason for it. A presumed "right to be forgotten" is not such a reason.
I agree. It's just that no one should be forbidden to speak without a very good reason for it. Protecting one person's perceived right to privacy is not, in most cases, a good enough reason to force another to keep quiet.
But not necessarily a correct balance.
There's a right to kill if the law says there is. There's a right to discriminate against others if the law says there is. A legal right is not a moral right.
Certain rights are important enough not to be left to the electorate. Such rights should never be subordinate to democracy.
Freedom of speech is a human right. From a moral standpoint, jurisdiction is irrelevant: Europeans have as much right to free speech as Americans do, even if the law doesn't recognize it.
A legal right is not the same thing as a human right. A legal right can be anything the law defines as such. A human right, on the other hand, has more to do with ethics than it has to do with law.
When I say "absolute privacy is not a human right", it's not to argue against claims to the contrary but to avoid making the unqualified claim that privacy is not a human right. Humans do have a right to privacy, but such a right must be narrowly construed in light of competing rights such as freedom of speech. The quote you've offered is an excellent example of a case where free speech should trump a perceived right to privacy.
No, it shouldn't. Thuthful information should always be fair game, except in certain special case where privacy is essential.
"... photographs of your son and daughter, can not [be considered free speech]"
Sure they can. It depends very much on context. Filmmakers use minors all the time, and their actions are generally considered protected speech.
"The EU is talking about human rights, so stuff like copyright is trumped. That has always been the case."
Absolute privacy is not a human right. Construed as a human right, there's no such thing as a right to be forgotten.
Libel laws already protect people against false statements made about them.
The right to be forgotten? What about the responsibility to keep one's own private information private?
I have no problem with regulating the dissemination of private information held in confidence by online services, but information published by users or by people not affiliated with the online services in question should not receive any such protection in all but a few special cases (medical and financial information, for example).
When privacy and free speech are in conflict and there's no urgent and compelling reason to keep information private, free speech should always trump privacy.
Has the content only been removed from all of Google's websites, or just Google India?
It's scary to think of what the Interenet would look like if each and every website had to follow the laws of each and every country. I know the fact that Google has facilities in India puts significant pressure on them to comply, but the thought of being bound by the numerous idiotic laws around the world is extremely worrisome.
Google is apparently adopting a strategy of censoring content on a per-country basis. That's their privilege, but I hope it doesn't become the norm.
Taking down domains without a trial, secretly negotiating international IP treaties (ACTA), threatening American ISPs into adopting a "six strikes" policy...
Judging by its actions, IP enforcement is clearly the Obama Administration's top priority. Is it corruption, or is it just plain disregard for justice and the due process of law?
Is Google anticipating the worldwide adoption of domain-blocking regulations in the style of SOPA, PIPA, and Homeland Security's domain name seizures? Google could do per-country blocking without redirecting requests, so I presume the intent is to allow for country-wide blocking of particular foreign domains while still allowing for country-specific links to censored content.
I shudder to think this might someday become standard operating procedure for websites around the world.
Dropbox is not so much a data backup system as it is a way to share files between computers. As for it not being a "file locker" service, Dropbox does in fact allow its users to share their files with the public at large by placing them inside a special folder.
That might change in the near future, now that the government has shut down Megaupload.
Is there some reason why the DMCA's safe harbor provisions don't apply to Megaupload, or has the Federal Government decided those provisions are too inconvenient and therefore do not apply? Will Dropbox become the US Government's next target?