That means you don't use a compass to define your heading?
When getting from A to B, the important criterion is not your heading but your bearing. You don't use your compass to determine your bearing. The first time you did and you were in a crosswind, you'd be in the wrong place going the wrong direction. It's a typical student mistake to ignore wind corrections and try to fly the ILS by nailing the compass to the bearing, or doing the same when following an airway.
Or if you do and your GPS tells you you are left, you steer more right?
Your compass does not tell you if you are left or right of your desired course, so yes, if the GPS tells you you are left, the natural reaction, lacking any reason to disbelieve your GPS, is to steer right until you are back on course. And that is the standard definition of the term "rely": to believe and act upon. If you are using an ILS then you are typically equally reliant upon the localizer. You may rely upon a VOR cross-vector for information about how far along the ILS you are, but for left-right info you rely on the "localizer", whether that is a ground-transmitted radio signal for ILS/VOR approaches or satellite-transmitted ones for a GPS approach.
The fact that pilots do, indeed, rely upon such signals can be easily verified by reading the NTSB reports of accidents that happen when pilots don't realize they shouldn't rely upon the signals that have failed and follow the incorrect guidance into terrain.
Actually, there are two main definitions of "rely" and neither means "cannot do without". I rely on someone's advice when buying cars. I can certainly buy a car without his advice. That's the "is dependable and is readily believed" definition.
The other is closer to what you think it means, as in "she relies upon her parents for tuition." That, too, does not mean she cannot find another source of tuition, just that she is currently using that source.
But this is a word game. Pilots do, of course, rely upon GPS all the time since it now appears in so many aircraft and is the basis for the push for direct-to routing. They are not necessarily in a position where they cannot do without it, unless they happen to be IFR (cannot "look out the window") in an aircraft without an NDB or INS, and out of range of a VOR.
As a pilot on a plane, you get confirmations from ground stations that track you via radar.
That you've never been out of radar contact speaks more about your piloting experience than how the world actually works. I've had controllers tell me "primary and secondary radar out of service" while on an IFR flight plan. I've had them tell me "radar contact lost" because I've been below their coverage (it happens all the time on approach to KONP.)
No sane captain of a ship or navigator or pilot would ever rely on GPS...
Then you must think there are a lot of insane pilots. And as ILS and VOR approaches are decommissioned in favor of GPS ones, there will be even more of them.
Why don't they make investment into areas that would result in well-being and abundances - eliminating the threat of anyone resorting to use of explosives?
Because well-being and abundances have nothing to do with people who want to use explosives to blow things up? I.e., you won't eliminate the threat.
No, actually, you claimed the following: "Privacy is only possible with FOSS." And I pointed out that 1) the statement is wrong, and 2) it does not imply that "FOSS implies privacy", which is the claim being made by RMS that FOSS includes a respect for the user's privacy.
Privacy cannot imply FOSS simply because you can have software that respects a user's privacy that is non FOSS and FOSS software that doesn't. In RMS's world, the two go hand in hand, in the real world they are unrelated.
I don't know how you could've gotten "FOSS implies privacy" out of my post, when clearly there are wheels everywhere not attached to cars.
I ignored the typically useless car analogy and considered the context of the discussion, and replied to the specific claim that you actually did make, which was wrong.
"All A is B" doesn't mean "All B is A". I.e., that you think privacy is only possible with FOSS doesn't mean that all FOSS respects user's privacy.
Further, the issue of privacy isn't tied to the FOSS nature of something. It's tied to the actual programming. Being able to PROVE that a piece of software doesn't violate your privacy in some way requires access to the source, but proving it is different than being it.
As just one example, I started using a piece of FOSS for the RPi that provided a small webserver controlling the GPIO pins. Very nice. It wasn't until I wanted to see how they did it so I could use the ideas myself that I found the Google analytics code embedded in the page. There was no option that asked if I wanted my usage of this code tracked, it simply did it. I think it was repugnant that this guy put that code there, but there was no guarantee that it wasn't there just because I had access to the source, and no guarantee that I'd even know what that code did unless I bothered looking at and understood the HTML/js he produced. In this case, FOSS did not guarantee privacy, it simply enabled me to find that it was being violated and stop it.
If you think I should have examined the code before I used it, you're probably right. But that level of care doesn't scale well. I certainly wouldn't have the time to search through the gcc compiler source code, or that of all the libraries, to see what gotcha's are hidden therein. Yes, there are lots of people who probably have, but there have also been cases of hacked repositories where malware has been inserted and user's privacy shot to hell, so a user still has an open vulnerability. Even when using FOSS.
I'm not the one claiming that there are "lots of laws" that cover the posting of private information like the fact that someone on vacation and their house is empty for three weeks. YOU are. If there are lots of laws, you should be able to cite one.
Who has to spend the time and money to search everywhere for "your" data?
Nobody. What makes you think someone does?
Are you going to?
I might. I might kibo the net for references to me. I know there are people who do, because I mentioned someone by name online and about a day later I got an email threatening action unless I changed the story to fit his version of reality. Maybe I'll just come across it while looking for something else. When I find my data someplace where I didn't put it, I should have the right to demand it be removed.
The data exists all over the place and all Facebook, Google, et. al. can do is delete the link.
Facebook can delete the wall posting or tag in the photo, which is much more than just deleting a link. The data might not yet exist "all over the place", so mitigating the spread is an appropriate action. Deleting the Facebook comment or tag is a lot more than just hiding the data, but even if all you do is get google to delete a link (which you've followed already so you know where it points and you are also getting the destination removed) you've made it harder for others to find the information. That's not a perfect prevention of stupidity, but it does mitigate the damage.
Do you expect some vague "government agency" to patrol all the Internet and tell all those sites what to "erase"?
I don't know where you came up with this. I said nothing of the sort.
Information does not disappear. I know you wish it were otherwise --
You want to think you know what I wish because it makes a wonderful straw man you can knock about, but you really don't have a clue. You've shown that. I've been rather explicit in saying that you can't prevent stupidity but you can MITIGATE against it. If someone posts the fact that I'm on vacation and my house is sitting empty for three weeks, no, of course I cannot delete that information from anyplace that has copied it already, but I can have the post deleted so it can't be copied from there again. If that prevents a casual user from finding that data and acting on it, then we've MITIGATED the stupidity of the person who posted it.
I'll repeat this again since you seem to ignore it: if you demand that every law be a perfect prophylactic for stupidity, then we could have no laws at all. Maybe the word "prophylactic" confuses you? As you say it, you can't STOP stupidity by laws, but I say you can mitigate. Mitigate? "Lessen the negative consequences". Keep damages from happening.
so why do you think this law will do anything but require various companies waste tons of time and money attempting to do the impossible?
Because it isn't impossible? It is quite easy for Google Groups, for example, to delete a post. It is quite easy for Facebook to delete things. Nobody says that Facebook has to go find the same information everywhere it appears on the net to delete it. They will have to find the places THEY'VE given it to (like business partners they share info with), but if YOU'VE put it someplace they don't know about why do you think they'd be responsible for finding it?
And why shouldn't they have that responsibility? They are free to change their "privacy policy" without true notice so that they are "allowed" to give your data to others; why shouldn't they be required to undo what they've done? You ask who is supposed to search the net for every occurrance of a piece of data, so here's the turnabout on you: who is supposed to review every website's TOS every day to see if there has been a change that would mean their data is now free for the sharing?
Like I said there are no laws, no "rights", no rules that will protect you from stupidity --
And like I said, requiring that every law be a perfect prophylactic against stupidity would mean there would be no laws, and like I said, being able to mitigate the damage done by stupidity is not a bad thing.
Sorry, no help for you when it comes to stupidity. Deal with it.
Sorry, but a law that requires facebook et.al. to remove information when the owner of that information requests it IS a help against stupidity, as I've already said.
Hatta is right that you have a free speech right to express the knowledge that your neighbor is on vacation.
And the neighbor has the right to say "that is not information I want made public, I did not make it public, and I want it removed from facebook, etc." He should be in control of his information.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain that Facebook is busy scraping their user's data for their own use and then say that someone has no right to control information about themselves? Either you have the right not to have Facebook controlling your data or you don't.
There are lots of laws that cover situations you seem to be concerned with. Lots of laws.
First of all, I'm not concerned about these situations, I simply provided them as an example in response to a request for examples. Most people would be concerned if their credit or medical status appeared online, or if the fact their house was unoccupied for a long period of time was announced to everyone.
Second, I'll take this as an admission that you cannot provide any citation to back up your claim that these are all illegal. You cannot seriously think that there is a law that would prevent me from posting something like "I'm looking after miltonw's house while he's out of town for a month", or that there is a law that would stop me from saying "I saw miltonw at the pharmacy and I overheard him asking about treatments for the clap".
You seem to be reacting to some very specific examples and overlooking the very broad nature of the issues behind them, claiming they are illegal, and yet unable to cite any laws that would make it so. Or citing any laws that would force the deletion of material that someone else posted illegally. Were there such laws, they would have been used to deal with the wikileaks people, since much of what they leak was obtained illegally. The owner of the original information would simply say "remove it" and it would be gone. Apparently the law is not as clear as you seem to think on this, especially when dealing with third parties.
You lie. Forcing me to forget is demanding control of my brain.
You are a troll. Nobody said anything about forcing you to forget anything. The issue is about forcing facebook etc. to delete information from their systems.
Yes, that is all completely acceptable.
Now you've proven beyond all doubt that you are a troll.
Unless you picked up the electrons from the Google server and inserted it in the new system then the new system is actually doing the work and you are just authorizing it.
YOU are ordering it to be done, not Facebook. You are doing it, using the software that, gasp, is available on the website.
Did you move the information? No,
Yes, you did. You made use of software that accomplished what you wanted done. That doesn't mean you didn't do it and are responsible for it happening.
An no, you did not do the sync, the app did.
"I didn't shoot the victim, your honor, the gun did. I just pulled the trigger after pointing it in his general direction." "I didn't download kiddie pr0n, your honor, I just clicked a few buttons and the web browser downloaded it." If YOU told the app to do it then YOU did it and are responsible for it, not facebook. Of course the software did the actual operation, but it was YOUR intention for it to happen, and YOU know it happened.
This law is intended to deal with the cases when you DID NOT do the copying and don't necessarily know it happened.
He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.
How do you know this? We know there was an earlier suit over unpaid bills. We know there was a review claiming damages to the home and lost jewelry. We don't know that she hired him again after the first lawsuit or that he accepted a second job. For all we know the bad review was a poor attempt at getting back at the contractor for the earlier lawsuit.
I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore.
You have no idea that they want to do business with each other anymore, so wondering why they want to is a bit premature.
You can assert time and time again that you have the right to control what I do with my own brain.
I have made no such assertion.
So put up or shut up. Explain to me where this right derives from.
You claim the right to do with your brain, as your own property, what you wish, yet you ignore the right of others to control that which they own -- the information about them that you have managed to "observe". And by "observe", you really mean "was given to you for specific uses".
Your argument would make it perfectly acceptable for me, as an employee of PayPal, for example, to post every bit of credit card information that I "observe". That includes your credit card information, should I happen to observe it. Or your bank account information, should I happen to work at your bank. Or your medical information, should I happen to observe it. This would all be my "freedom of thought" in action, using what I have "observed".
Since such actions are clearly not acceptable, even assuming your perfect right of "free thought" that maps into the perfect right of "free speech" (two different things in the real world), then it must be your argument that fails. Because such actions are so patently unacceptable and yet to trivially derived from your position, I can only assume that your argument is based on a desire to play meaningless word games, or a desire to troll.
First, posting a person's credit card information is against the law.
First, "citation required".
Second, it may be against the law for them to post it, but where is the law that says that Facebook (or any other social website) must take it down upon your request?
And third, so what? You can't think of any other kind of information that isn't "illegal" to post that you should have the right to control when others post it without your permission?
Second, there is no law, no "right", no rule that will ever protect us from stupidity.
The right to be forgotten doesn't mean there is some prohibition on stupidity, only an ability to mitigate the problem when it occurs. If you are arguing that we can have no laws unless they are foolproof prophylactics, then we can have no laws at all. If laws were absolute protection from that which they prohibit, we'd need neither police nor courts as there would be no crime. "I need not lock my front door, as there are clear laws against someone entering my house and taking my property, and this law certainly prevents that from happening."
Sorry, by the time you find this out, it's too late for this silly "right to be forgotten" to protect you.
Hardly. When I get the notification of their status update within seconds after they have posted it, then I can stop anyone who isn't immediately notified from finding out by having it taken down immediately. If someone is browsing facebook looking for such information, unless he's there in the short time it is up, he won't know it. That's protection from him.
Sorry, the people around you will never forget that party.
Keeping people who are direct participants in something from knowing about it is significantly different than keeping arbitrary people from knowing. The right to be forgotten doesn't need to cover every recipient of a bit of information for it to be valuable. As in, you cannot tell the vendor you just gave your credit card to when you paid for dinner to forget that information (as a way of avoiding being charged), but you certainly have the right to tell Facebook to take that information down should that vendor post it publicly.
- Giving out credit card information is already against the law. The proposed "right to be forgotten" is not about that.
If I view your credit card while it is sitting on a table, it is something I have observed. What law keeps me from making that information public? I've entered into no agreement with you or your credit card vendor to keep anything private.
Spying on people's private lives is already against the law.
How is someone telling their neighbor that they will be out of town for three weeks and asking them to keep an eye on their house "spying"?
Doctors are required, by law to keep patient information confidential.
Again, there is this alleged right to post things that one has observed. My doctor observed my medical condition, he has the right to free thought and speech. I'm not making this up, it is part of the argument being used against the concept of the "right to be forgotten".
Why don't you talk about real situations not already covered by existing laws, that require this new "right"? Hmmm?
Been there, done that. Your neighbor who posts the fact that you are out of town for three weeks is a very good, and quite realistic, example of when such a need exists. There was no "spying" involved, no legal prohibition against such a posting.
If you think something like that wouldn't happen, I can tell you for a fact that it does. Not facebook specifically, but a personal example. I told someone who actually had a need to know that I was going to be out of town for a week, who should have known that such information was not for public dissemination, and it was not ten minutes later that this fact was being transmitted over the radio to a large group of people. Are you arguing that there is some law that I could apply to this situation and have this person arrested and put in jail?
It's not a long stretch at all. It is plainly censorship, by definition.
Nonsense. Only by using a very bastardized meaningless definition.
If it's in my brain, it's my information.
More nonsense. It may be "in your brain", but it is not information about you and it is not your information to disseminate in any way you want to.
The idea that you have rights over my brain is completley nonsensical.
The idea that you have the right to publicly distribute every piece of information you have "in your brain" is nonsensical.
Listening to something I am told is a form of observation.
You're a nut. A word-gamer nut.
You just don't really respect free thought.
You have the right to think whatever you want about information in whatever it is you call "your brain". You do not have the right to distribute information about other people wherever and whenever you wish just because you think it is "in your brain".
What if the copying is done by a program on the new site? The new site is doing the action and you are authorizing it.
You keep asking the same question and then answering it in the same post. YOU moved the data. YOU gave it to the new site. YOU. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?
What if You used an import feature on a new social site to import your data?
What if YOU moved your data? Did facebook move your data, or did you?
It could be seen as Facebook giving your information to the new site.
You're going to great lengths to absolve facebook of any responsibility for giving your information away. If YOU move your data someplace, YOU did it. Not facebook. If facebook hands your data over to others, THEY handed it over.
Would Facebook have to inform the new site that the original contact was deleted? This is a yes or no answer.
Why would facebook be required to tell someone YOU have given your information to that you've deleted it from facebook? No, you did not provide a "yes or no answer", you asked a question. The answer should be obvious.
Actually, requiring facebook to delete that information is an issue between you and the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Are you actually arguing that corporations are people and have the same rights, like the right to free speech?
Are you arguing that a corporation from which you have purchased a product using a credit card has the right of free speech to post that credit card data and data about the transaction online for everyone else to see? Are you arguing that your doctor has the right to free speech, too, and can post details of your most recent office visit online, and you have no right to have it taken down?
No, sorry, the "right of free speech" does not mean you have the right to speechify other people's information whenever or wherever you want.
I don't see how you can justify censoring your neighbor under those circumstances.
I can, even if it is a very loong stretch to call it censoring. It isn't his information. He had no right to post about you.
I have every right to observe and make those observations public.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right (which I don't agree that you are), the situations I presented are not you observing something, it is something you were told, both the credit card information, or the fact that the house owner was out of town for three weeks.
This is what freedom of thought is all about.
Freedom of thought is not freedom to post every piece of information about other people whereever and whenever you feel like it.
If your friend tells you to forget his phone number, why would you refuse to do so? Are you going to say "no, asshole, I'm keeping your phone number just to spite you."
If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.
And requiring facebook to delete that information when you tell them to is an issue between you and facebook.
The only way to know for certain that Facebook isn't violating your privacy would be to have access to every single media item on their servers, and manually go through them all to make sure no one else has posted your private information there.
Or, you know, someone could pass a law...
And the only way to know that they aren't (or are) violating the law is to... go through every single media item on their servers to make sure that no one else has posted your private information. Simply saying "someone could pass a law" isn't the solution to this kind of problem. Passing a law doesn't mean you "know for certain" anything.
You buy something from me online using your credit card. I post that information to Facebook. Or maybe you go on vacation and you tell your neighbor you're going away and ask him to watch your house for you. He is an avid facebooker and posts several status updates for himself that says things like "just checkin out my pal mark-t's house for him while he's out of town for three weeks..."
Do you now see why you might have a need for Facebook to forget something that you didn't post there?
Slashdot Mirror
That means you don't use a compass to define your heading?
When getting from A to B, the important criterion is not your heading but your bearing. You don't use your compass to determine your bearing. The first time you did and you were in a crosswind, you'd be in the wrong place going the wrong direction. It's a typical student mistake to ignore wind corrections and try to fly the ILS by nailing the compass to the bearing, or doing the same when following an airway.
Or if you do and your GPS tells you you are left, you steer more right?
Your compass does not tell you if you are left or right of your desired course, so yes, if the GPS tells you you are left, the natural reaction, lacking any reason to disbelieve your GPS, is to steer right until you are back on course. And that is the standard definition of the term "rely": to believe and act upon. If you are using an ILS then you are typically equally reliant upon the localizer. You may rely upon a VOR cross-vector for information about how far along the ILS you are, but for left-right info you rely on the "localizer", whether that is a ground-transmitted radio signal for ILS/VOR approaches or satellite-transmitted ones for a GPS approach.
The fact that pilots do, indeed, rely upon such signals can be easily verified by reading the NTSB reports of accidents that happen when pilots don't realize they shouldn't rely upon the signals that have failed and follow the incorrect guidance into terrain.
The word rely implies: "you can not without".
Actually, there are two main definitions of "rely" and neither means "cannot do without". I rely on someone's advice when buying cars. I can certainly buy a car without his advice. That's the "is dependable and is readily believed" definition. The other is closer to what you think it means, as in "she relies upon her parents for tuition." That, too, does not mean she cannot find another source of tuition, just that she is currently using that source.
But this is a word game. Pilots do, of course, rely upon GPS all the time since it now appears in so many aircraft and is the basis for the push for direct-to routing. They are not necessarily in a position where they cannot do without it, unless they happen to be IFR (cannot "look out the window") in an aircraft without an NDB or INS, and out of range of a VOR.
As a pilot on a plane, you get confirmations from ground stations that track you via radar.
That you've never been out of radar contact speaks more about your piloting experience than how the world actually works. I've had controllers tell me "primary and secondary radar out of service" while on an IFR flight plan. I've had them tell me "radar contact lost" because I've been below their coverage (it happens all the time on approach to KONP.)
No sane captain of a ship or navigator or pilot would ever rely on GPS ...
Then you must think there are a lot of insane pilots. And as ILS and VOR approaches are decommissioned in favor of GPS ones, there will be even more of them.
Why don't they make investment into areas that would result in well-being and abundances - eliminating the threat of anyone resorting to use of explosives?
Because well-being and abundances have nothing to do with people who want to use explosives to blow things up? I.e., you won't eliminate the threat.
I claimed privacy implies FOSS.
No, actually, you claimed the following: "Privacy is only possible with FOSS." And I pointed out that 1) the statement is wrong, and 2) it does not imply that "FOSS implies privacy", which is the claim being made by RMS that FOSS includes a respect for the user's privacy.
Privacy cannot imply FOSS simply because you can have software that respects a user's privacy that is non FOSS and FOSS software that doesn't. In RMS's world, the two go hand in hand, in the real world they are unrelated.
I don't know how you could've gotten "FOSS implies privacy" out of my post, when clearly there are wheels everywhere not attached to cars.
I ignored the typically useless car analogy and considered the context of the discussion, and replied to the specific claim that you actually did make, which was wrong.
Privacy is only possible with FOSS.
"All A is B" doesn't mean "All B is A". I.e., that you think privacy is only possible with FOSS doesn't mean that all FOSS respects user's privacy.
Further, the issue of privacy isn't tied to the FOSS nature of something. It's tied to the actual programming. Being able to PROVE that a piece of software doesn't violate your privacy in some way requires access to the source, but proving it is different than being it.
As just one example, I started using a piece of FOSS for the RPi that provided a small webserver controlling the GPIO pins. Very nice. It wasn't until I wanted to see how they did it so I could use the ideas myself that I found the Google analytics code embedded in the page. There was no option that asked if I wanted my usage of this code tracked, it simply did it. I think it was repugnant that this guy put that code there, but there was no guarantee that it wasn't there just because I had access to the source, and no guarantee that I'd even know what that code did unless I bothered looking at and understood the HTML/js he produced. In this case, FOSS did not guarantee privacy, it simply enabled me to find that it was being violated and stop it.
If you think I should have examined the code before I used it, you're probably right. But that level of care doesn't scale well. I certainly wouldn't have the time to search through the gcc compiler source code, or that of all the libraries, to see what gotcha's are hidden therein. Yes, there are lots of people who probably have, but there have also been cases of hacked repositories where malware has been inserted and user's privacy shot to hell, so a user still has an open vulnerability. Even when using FOSS.
Back at you. LOL!
I'm not the one claiming that there are "lots of laws" that cover the posting of private information like the fact that someone on vacation and their house is empty for three weeks. YOU are. If there are lots of laws, you should be able to cite one.
Who has to spend the time and money to search everywhere for "your" data?
Nobody. What makes you think someone does?
Are you going to?
I might. I might kibo the net for references to me. I know there are people who do, because I mentioned someone by name online and about a day later I got an email threatening action unless I changed the story to fit his version of reality. Maybe I'll just come across it while looking for something else. When I find my data someplace where I didn't put it, I should have the right to demand it be removed.
The data exists all over the place and all Facebook, Google, et. al. can do is delete the link.
Facebook can delete the wall posting or tag in the photo, which is much more than just deleting a link. The data might not yet exist "all over the place", so mitigating the spread is an appropriate action. Deleting the Facebook comment or tag is a lot more than just hiding the data, but even if all you do is get google to delete a link (which you've followed already so you know where it points and you are also getting the destination removed) you've made it harder for others to find the information. That's not a perfect prevention of stupidity, but it does mitigate the damage.
Do you expect some vague "government agency" to patrol all the Internet and tell all those sites what to "erase"?
I don't know where you came up with this. I said nothing of the sort.
Information does not disappear. I know you wish it were otherwise --
You want to think you know what I wish because it makes a wonderful straw man you can knock about, but you really don't have a clue. You've shown that. I've been rather explicit in saying that you can't prevent stupidity but you can MITIGATE against it. If someone posts the fact that I'm on vacation and my house is sitting empty for three weeks, no, of course I cannot delete that information from anyplace that has copied it already, but I can have the post deleted so it can't be copied from there again. If that prevents a casual user from finding that data and acting on it, then we've MITIGATED the stupidity of the person who posted it.
I'll repeat this again since you seem to ignore it: if you demand that every law be a perfect prophylactic for stupidity, then we could have no laws at all. Maybe the word "prophylactic" confuses you? As you say it, you can't STOP stupidity by laws, but I say you can mitigate. Mitigate? "Lessen the negative consequences". Keep damages from happening.
so why do you think this law will do anything but require various companies waste tons of time and money attempting to do the impossible?
Because it isn't impossible? It is quite easy for Google Groups, for example, to delete a post. It is quite easy for Facebook to delete things. Nobody says that Facebook has to go find the same information everywhere it appears on the net to delete it. They will have to find the places THEY'VE given it to (like business partners they share info with), but if YOU'VE put it someplace they don't know about why do you think they'd be responsible for finding it?
And why shouldn't they have that responsibility? They are free to change their "privacy policy" without true notice so that they are "allowed" to give your data to others; why shouldn't they be required to undo what they've done? You ask who is supposed to search the net for every occurrance of a piece of data, so here's the turnabout on you: who is supposed to review every website's TOS every day to see if there has been a change that would mean their data is now free for the sharing?
Like I said there are no laws, no "rights", no rules that will protect you from stupidity --
And like I said, requiring that every law be a perfect prophylactic against stupidity would mean there would be no laws, and like I said, being able to mitigate the damage done by stupidity is not a bad thing.
Sorry, no help for you when it comes to stupidity. Deal with it.
Sorry, but a law that requires facebook et.al. to remove information when the owner of that information requests it IS a help against stupidity, as I've already said.
Hatta is right that you have a free speech right to express the knowledge that your neighbor is on vacation.
And the neighbor has the right to say "that is not information I want made public, I did not make it public, and I want it removed from facebook, etc." He should be in control of his information.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain that Facebook is busy scraping their user's data for their own use and then say that someone has no right to control information about themselves? Either you have the right not to have Facebook controlling your data or you don't.
There are lots of laws that cover situations you seem to be concerned with. Lots of laws.
First of all, I'm not concerned about these situations, I simply provided them as an example in response to a request for examples. Most people would be concerned if their credit or medical status appeared online, or if the fact their house was unoccupied for a long period of time was announced to everyone.
Second, I'll take this as an admission that you cannot provide any citation to back up your claim that these are all illegal. You cannot seriously think that there is a law that would prevent me from posting something like "I'm looking after miltonw's house while he's out of town for a month", or that there is a law that would stop me from saying "I saw miltonw at the pharmacy and I overheard him asking about treatments for the clap".
You seem to be reacting to some very specific examples and overlooking the very broad nature of the issues behind them, claiming they are illegal, and yet unable to cite any laws that would make it so. Or citing any laws that would force the deletion of material that someone else posted illegally. Were there such laws, they would have been used to deal with the wikileaks people, since much of what they leak was obtained illegally. The owner of the original information would simply say "remove it" and it would be gone. Apparently the law is not as clear as you seem to think on this, especially when dealing with third parties.
You lie. Forcing me to forget is demanding control of my brain.
You are a troll. Nobody said anything about forcing you to forget anything. The issue is about forcing facebook etc. to delete information from their systems.
Yes, that is all completely acceptable.
Now you've proven beyond all doubt that you are a troll.
Unless you picked up the electrons from the Google server and inserted it in the new system then the new system is actually doing the work and you are just authorizing it.
YOU are ordering it to be done, not Facebook. You are doing it, using the software that, gasp, is available on the website.
Did you move the information? No,
Yes, you did. You made use of software that accomplished what you wanted done. That doesn't mean you didn't do it and are responsible for it happening.
An no, you did not do the sync, the app did.
"I didn't shoot the victim, your honor, the gun did. I just pulled the trigger after pointing it in his general direction." "I didn't download kiddie pr0n, your honor, I just clicked a few buttons and the web browser downloaded it." If YOU told the app to do it then YOU did it and are responsible for it, not facebook. Of course the software did the actual operation, but it was YOUR intention for it to happen, and YOU know it happened.
This law is intended to deal with the cases when you DID NOT do the copying and don't necessarily know it happened.
He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.
How do you know this? We know there was an earlier suit over unpaid bills. We know there was a review claiming damages to the home and lost jewelry. We don't know that she hired him again after the first lawsuit or that he accepted a second job. For all we know the bad review was a poor attempt at getting back at the contractor for the earlier lawsuit.
I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore.
You have no idea that they want to do business with each other anymore, so wondering why they want to is a bit premature.
You can assert time and time again that you have the right to control what I do with my own brain.
I have made no such assertion.
So put up or shut up. Explain to me where this right derives from.
You claim the right to do with your brain, as your own property, what you wish, yet you ignore the right of others to control that which they own -- the information about them that you have managed to "observe". And by "observe", you really mean "was given to you for specific uses".
Your argument would make it perfectly acceptable for me, as an employee of PayPal, for example, to post every bit of credit card information that I "observe". That includes your credit card information, should I happen to observe it. Or your bank account information, should I happen to work at your bank. Or your medical information, should I happen to observe it. This would all be my "freedom of thought" in action, using what I have "observed".
Since such actions are clearly not acceptable, even assuming your perfect right of "free thought" that maps into the perfect right of "free speech" (two different things in the real world), then it must be your argument that fails. Because such actions are so patently unacceptable and yet to trivially derived from your position, I can only assume that your argument is based on a desire to play meaningless word games, or a desire to troll.
First, posting a person's credit card information is against the law.
First, "citation required".
Second, it may be against the law for them to post it, but where is the law that says that Facebook (or any other social website) must take it down upon your request?
And third, so what? You can't think of any other kind of information that isn't "illegal" to post that you should have the right to control when others post it without your permission?
Second, there is no law, no "right", no rule that will ever protect us from stupidity.
The right to be forgotten doesn't mean there is some prohibition on stupidity, only an ability to mitigate the problem when it occurs. If you are arguing that we can have no laws unless they are foolproof prophylactics, then we can have no laws at all. If laws were absolute protection from that which they prohibit, we'd need neither police nor courts as there would be no crime. "I need not lock my front door, as there are clear laws against someone entering my house and taking my property, and this law certainly prevents that from happening."
Sorry, by the time you find this out, it's too late for this silly "right to be forgotten" to protect you.
Hardly. When I get the notification of their status update within seconds after they have posted it, then I can stop anyone who isn't immediately notified from finding out by having it taken down immediately. If someone is browsing facebook looking for such information, unless he's there in the short time it is up, he won't know it. That's protection from him.
Sorry, the people around you will never forget that party.
Keeping people who are direct participants in something from knowing about it is significantly different than keeping arbitrary people from knowing. The right to be forgotten doesn't need to cover every recipient of a bit of information for it to be valuable. As in, you cannot tell the vendor you just gave your credit card to when you paid for dinner to forget that information (as a way of avoiding being charged), but you certainly have the right to tell Facebook to take that information down should that vendor post it publicly.
- Giving out credit card information is already against the law. The proposed "right to be forgotten" is not about that.
If I view your credit card while it is sitting on a table, it is something I have observed. What law keeps me from making that information public? I've entered into no agreement with you or your credit card vendor to keep anything private.
Spying on people's private lives is already against the law.
How is someone telling their neighbor that they will be out of town for three weeks and asking them to keep an eye on their house "spying"?
Doctors are required, by law to keep patient information confidential.
Again, there is this alleged right to post things that one has observed. My doctor observed my medical condition, he has the right to free thought and speech. I'm not making this up, it is part of the argument being used against the concept of the "right to be forgotten".
Why don't you talk about real situations not already covered by existing laws, that require this new "right"? Hmmm?
Been there, done that. Your neighbor who posts the fact that you are out of town for three weeks is a very good, and quite realistic, example of when such a need exists. There was no "spying" involved, no legal prohibition against such a posting.
If you think something like that wouldn't happen, I can tell you for a fact that it does. Not facebook specifically, but a personal example. I told someone who actually had a need to know that I was going to be out of town for a week, who should have known that such information was not for public dissemination, and it was not ten minutes later that this fact was being transmitted over the radio to a large group of people. Are you arguing that there is some law that I could apply to this situation and have this person arrested and put in jail?
It's not a long stretch at all. It is plainly censorship, by definition.
Nonsense. Only by using a very bastardized meaningless definition.
If it's in my brain, it's my information.
More nonsense. It may be "in your brain", but it is not information about you and it is not your information to disseminate in any way you want to.
The idea that you have rights over my brain is completley nonsensical.
The idea that you have the right to publicly distribute every piece of information you have "in your brain" is nonsensical.
Listening to something I am told is a form of observation.
You're a nut. A word-gamer nut.
You just don't really respect free thought.
You have the right to think whatever you want about information in whatever it is you call "your brain". You do not have the right to distribute information about other people wherever and whenever you wish just because you think it is "in your brain".
What if the copying is done by a program on the new site? The new site is doing the action and you are authorizing it.
You keep asking the same question and then answering it in the same post. YOU moved the data. YOU gave it to the new site. YOU. Why is that such a hard concept for you to grasp?
What if You used an import feature on a new social site to import your data?
What if YOU moved your data? Did facebook move your data, or did you?
It could be seen as Facebook giving your information to the new site.
You're going to great lengths to absolve facebook of any responsibility for giving your information away. If YOU move your data someplace, YOU did it. Not facebook. If facebook hands your data over to others, THEY handed it over.
Would Facebook have to inform the new site that the original contact was deleted? This is a yes or no answer.
Why would facebook be required to tell someone YOU have given your information to that you've deleted it from facebook? No, you did not provide a "yes or no answer", you asked a question. The answer should be obvious.
Actually, requiring facebook to delete that information is an issue between you and the fundamental right to freedom of speech.
Are you actually arguing that corporations are people and have the same rights, like the right to free speech?
Are you arguing that a corporation from which you have purchased a product using a credit card has the right of free speech to post that credit card data and data about the transaction online for everyone else to see? Are you arguing that your doctor has the right to free speech, too, and can post details of your most recent office visit online, and you have no right to have it taken down?
No, sorry, the "right of free speech" does not mean you have the right to speechify other people's information whenever or wherever you want.
I don't see how you can justify censoring your neighbor under those circumstances.
I can, even if it is a very loong stretch to call it censoring. It isn't his information. He had no right to post about you.
I have every right to observe and make those observations public.
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are right (which I don't agree that you are), the situations I presented are not you observing something, it is something you were told, both the credit card information, or the fact that the house owner was out of town for three weeks.
This is what freedom of thought is all about.
Freedom of thought is not freedom to post every piece of information about other people whereever and whenever you feel like it.
What if I already had that information?
If your friend tells you to forget his phone number, why would you refuse to do so? Are you going to say "no, asshole, I'm keeping your phone number just to spite you."
Why do you care what your friend tells facebook?
If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.
And requiring facebook to delete that information when you tell them to is an issue between you and facebook.
The only way to know for certain that Facebook isn't violating your privacy would be to have access to every single media item on their servers, and manually go through them all to make sure no one else has posted your private information there. Or, you know, someone could pass a law...
And the only way to know that they aren't (or are) violating the law is to ... go through every single media item on their servers to make sure that no one else has posted your private information. Simply saying "someone could pass a law" isn't the solution to this kind of problem. Passing a law doesn't mean you "know for certain" anything.
Then why would you need them to forget it?
You buy something from me online using your credit card. I post that information to Facebook. Or maybe you go on vacation and you tell your neighbor you're going away and ask him to watch your house for you. He is an avid facebooker and posts several status updates for himself that says things like "just checkin out my pal mark-t's house for him while he's out of town for three weeks..."
Do you now see why you might have a need for Facebook to forget something that you didn't post there?
That is my point. Are you now not copying data from Google to your site? Is that not "copying data to other sites"?
It is YOU copying YOUR data to other sites.