I'll take this as an admission that you cannot provide any citation to back up your claims.
Back at you. LOL!
You can cherry-pick all the "examples" you want but you are avoiding the broad picture.
How would this "Right" to be forgotten work? Who has to spend the time and money to search everywhere for "your" data? Are you going to? Or do you expect someone to do all that for you? In many cases the original posting was by the person who now wants it removed, so who is responsible for tracking down all the places it might have gone?
Who does all that work? What do they look for, your name? If so, how do they know which "Bob Jones" is you? What bits of information about "you" are they supposed to "erase"? The data exists all over the place and all Facebook, Google, et. al. can do is delete the link. Oops! The data you found so embarrassing is still there somewhere but now it's harder for you to locate to get it removed.
Do you expect some vague "government agency" to patrol all the Internet and tell all those sites what to "erase"? When has any government agency been that effective, or do you believe in magic?
Even if the "right" to be forgotten was a good idea, which I don't agree with, what magical incantation would make your embarrassing information "disappear"? It. Isn't. Possible.
That is one thing we have all learned about the Internet. Information does not disappear. I know you wish it were otherwise -- a lot of people do, but that's just the way it is. Passing a law that mandates something that is impossible to do is the epitome of stupid. You simply cannot make the Internet completely remove data. You know this because you alluded to it, 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?
Wow! I didn't know that. You own every bit of information about you? Fantastic. So you tell the government to erase everything it knows about you and it does? I'm moving there right away.
So, in other words, you agree with my translation, not the deliberately muddy way that FB communicates with people.
However, let us be crystal, EU citizens do have rights that override corporate desires, and the Right to be Forgotten used to be one of the hallmarks of America, not Europe.
It is a shame how far we have fallen from our former glory here in the US.
I was not disagreeing with you.
However, the stupid "Right to be Forgotten" was never a hallmark of the United States. The right to privacy certainly might be considered that, but that really isn't the same thing.
I was not clear. The action of you choosing to delete your account or your post is not the same thing as you forcing Facebook to delete someone else's posts (which happen to include your name, etc.).
They don't need any "excuse". That's their business model. They provide all sorts of free services that their users like and in exchange their users have agreed to Facebook using all their data.
I get a kick out of people, using Facebook for free, complaining and complaining about how Facebook uses their data in ways that they agreed to.
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?
Obviously not. Like I said there are no laws, no "rights", no rules that will protect you from stupidity -- not even this stupid "right" to be forgotten. Sorry, no help for you when it comes to stupidity. Deal with it.
Because such data belongs exclusively to the individual.
No it doesn't. Don't be silly. You do not own "every bit of information about you". The concept is absurd. If the data was legally obtained then it is simply facts. In addition, public information is just that: "public information".
Information about you that can be legally obtained by anyone is not yours to delete. There are often very good reasons why public information about people is available to the public.
Would choosing to delete/close my account on facebook (or whatever other site) violate the same"right to remember"?
Obviously not.
How about just deleting all the posts I ever made? The contents of my posts wouldn't be available to others in much the same way.
That's like saying that you choosing not to speak is identical to you preventing someone else from speaking. You actually think those things are equivalent?
There are lots of laws that cover situations you seem to be concerned with. Lots of laws.
This stupid "right to be forgotten" isn't needed for any situation already covered by existing laws.
So what's its primary purpose? It allows stupid people who did stupid things, posted stupid videos, posted stupid pictures... it allows them to "never mind, erase-erase-erase" all that stupidity. (Of course, nothing actually can be "erased" from the Internet).
Understand: This "right" is about stuff that was legally obtained and legally posted. If any of it was illegal, it could be removed using existing laws.
Everything this silly "right" is about is legal postings that the person just "doesn't like".
First, posting a person's credit card information is against the law. You don't need this proposed "right" to get such information removed.
Second, there is no law, no "right", no rule that will ever protect us from stupidity. You've got "friends" who post that you're out of town for three weeks? Sorry, by the time you find this out, it's too late for this silly "right to be forgotten" to protect you.
You are not making a good case here.
No, I don't see how this "right to be forgotten" is really needed.
In real life, no one gets the right to be forgotten. You were stupid? You were crazy? You were drunk? Sorry, the people around you will never forget that party. That's life.
Misrepresenting what the debate is about is a Strawman argument. An illogic.
- Giving out credit card information is already against the law. The proposed "right to be forgotten" is not about that.
- Spying on people's private lives is already against the law. Therefore the proposed "right to be forgotten" isn't needed to fight that situation.
- Doctors are required, by law to keep patient information confidential. Therefore the proposed "right to be forgotten" is not applicable there either.
Your examples are not examples that require this new "right to be forgotten". Your examples for why we need this new "right" are already handled by existing laws.
All your arguments don't apply. You certainly "win" against your strawman opponent, but in the real world, you're not making headway.
Why don't you talk about real situations not already covered by existing laws, that require this new "right"? Hmmm?
Companies are fighting against this "right" because:
1. It is completely impossible to implement.
2. The burden of attempting to implement is is onerous.
3. Shifting the liability from those who actually have and publish the information to those who only link to it is just wrong.
4. If the data is true, what legal "right" exists to remove it?
5. Existing laws and agreements covering defamation already exist for instances of false information.
6. In many cases, the information was created and/or released by the person themselves -- but they later regret. Sorry, too bad. It's called responsibility for your own actions. Deal with it.
I have often wished I could get a "do over" in life -- but I've never considered that I actually had the right to it.
How would this be implemented? How about people who have the same name? How about variant spellings like "Rob", "Bob", "Bobby", "Robbie", "Bobbie", "Robert", etc.? What if the person only wants "that" video removed? How about photos and videos with no names attached but with identifiable faces? The problems with this "right" are infinite.
To claim that opponents are only upset because of ad revenue is a stupid claim and a complete red herring.
Nope. No "earth-shaking" there. Yes, the Slashdot headline written by I-don't-know-who has that phrase, but I don't see NASA saying it. If you are going to make a big point of criticizing NASA for saying "earth-shaking" and "breakthrough" you just might want to find out if they actually said it. Just an idea.
No, it damn well isn't elegant. The fact that you think so simply means that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about.
Those URLs of "known piracy sites" are the same URLs of sites that host significant amounts of perfectly legal content.
There are two scenarios that Verizon can follow:
- Invade everyone's privacy and inspect everything being downloaded, or
- Assume everyone who downloads more than a "certain amount" is "a pirate -- even when they aren't.
Whichever scenario Verizon chooses, it will be very wrong.
No, not "elegant" at all. Really, really bad. You really haven't a clue what you are talking about.
With Naziism a resurgent threat in Greece and trying to expand all across Europe, with American Republicans who express ideas as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler, it's nice to know that the Kent police are so on top of things that they can find someone to deal with these serious hate crimes.
I'll assume this is a troll -- on a thread about the suppression of free speech, a bit of flamebait to goad others to attack your "hate speech".
I'd have to say, it's a nice bit of ironic trolling.
Having just gone through a job change and being... older... I'd say this is perhaps the best advice so far.
Be enthusiastic about the work you will be doing. Be up to date, or close to it, on the skills that the work will require. Don't just talk about what you've done but talk about what you will do when you are hired.
And remember that a smile takes years off of your face.
One of the first lessons to be learned in a unionized shop is that doing the absolute minimum gets paid exactly as much as working really hard and trying to excel.
Second lesson to be learned is what is the absolute minimum necessary to avoid getting fired?
Third lesson is how to suck up to the union bosses so that, even when you drop below the minimum work level, they'll still protect you.
Today, unions exist to protect jobs - meaning that a poorly performing worker is protected and cannot be fired.
Technical people admire knowledge, ability and competence above anything else. And they are disgusted by incompetence, which makes everybody's work more difficult.
The idea of actually protecting incompetence (via unions) goes against the whole technical culture. No, unions are not coming to the development community.
You do your job. Many of these data centers are part of and important to communication, rescue operations, information. When you work there, you might not know how important that particular data center may be but -- you do your job.
Whatever part of the city you can keep operating is good.
Umm... You don't seem to understand the difference between Google's stock Android and the customized carrier version of Android. You don't seem to understand the difference between hardware problems and Android. You don't seem to understand the difference between apps and the o/s.
You certainly may complain about "Android" all you want, but you really should attempt to differentiate between all the various players and assign the correct responsibility rather than just say "Android, horrible!" Android is really quite wonderful. Carrier customizations, not so much. Some hardware isn't very up to the task and many of the apps can be pretty bad.
To just dump all the many various factors into one lump you call "Android" isn't very useful.
There is absolutely no proof that Google does "prioritize their services and the services of their partners". Google says they don't and the anti-Google folks claim Google does (but with no proof).
Now, why is it assumed that what the anti-Google folks claim is true but what the Google folk claim is false? Why do that? Why not either assume innocence "until proven guilty" or, at least, recognize that there are opposing claims, neither of which is proven and either might be true. Why assume guilt when nothing has been proven?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll take this as an admission that you cannot provide any citation to back up your claims.
Back at you. LOL!
You can cherry-pick all the "examples" you want but you are avoiding the broad picture.
How would this "Right" to be forgotten work? Who has to spend the time and money to search everywhere for "your" data? Are you going to? Or do you expect someone to do all that for you? In many cases the original posting was by the person who now wants it removed, so who is responsible for tracking down all the places it might have gone?
Who does all that work? What do they look for, your name? If so, how do they know which "Bob Jones" is you? What bits of information about "you" are they supposed to "erase"? The data exists all over the place and all Facebook, Google, et. al. can do is delete the link. Oops! The data you found so embarrassing is still there somewhere but now it's harder for you to locate to get it removed.
Do you expect some vague "government agency" to patrol all the Internet and tell all those sites what to "erase"? When has any government agency been that effective, or do you believe in magic?
Even if the "right" to be forgotten was a good idea, which I don't agree with, what magical incantation would make your embarrassing information "disappear"? It. Isn't. Possible.
That is one thing we have all learned about the Internet. Information does not disappear. I know you wish it were otherwise -- a lot of people do, but that's just the way it is. Passing a law that mandates something that is impossible to do is the epitome of stupid. You simply cannot make the Internet completely remove data. You know this because you alluded to it, 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?
That's the broad picture that you are ignoring.
Wow! I didn't know that. You own every bit of information about you? Fantastic. So you tell the government to erase everything it knows about you and it does? I'm moving there right away.
So, in other words, you agree with my translation, not the deliberately muddy way that FB communicates with people.
However, let us be crystal, EU citizens do have rights that override corporate desires, and the Right to be Forgotten used to be one of the hallmarks of America, not Europe.
It is a shame how far we have fallen from our former glory here in the US.
I was not disagreeing with you.
However, the stupid "Right to be Forgotten" was never a hallmark of the United States. The right to privacy certainly might be considered that, but that really isn't the same thing.
I was not clear. The action of you choosing to delete your account or your post is not the same thing as you forcing Facebook to delete someone else's posts (which happen to include your name, etc.).
They don't need any "excuse". That's their business model. They provide all sorts of free services that their users like and in exchange their users have agreed to Facebook using all their data.
I get a kick out of people, using Facebook for free, complaining and complaining about how Facebook uses their data in ways that they agreed to.
Comedy is plentiful these days.
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?
Obviously not. Like I said there are no laws, no "rights", no rules that will protect you from stupidity -- not even this stupid "right" to be forgotten. Sorry, no help for you when it comes to stupidity. Deal with it.
Because such data belongs exclusively to the individual.
No it doesn't. Don't be silly. You do not own "every bit of information about you". The concept is absurd. If the data was legally obtained then it is simply facts. In addition, public information is just that: "public information".
Information about you that can be legally obtained by anyone is not yours to delete. There are often very good reasons why public information about people is available to the public.
Would choosing to delete/close my account on facebook (or whatever other site) violate the same"right to remember"?
Obviously not.
How about just deleting all the posts I ever made? The contents of my posts wouldn't be available to others in much the same way.
That's like saying that you choosing not to speak is identical to you preventing someone else from speaking. You actually think those things are equivalent?
There are lots of laws that cover situations you seem to be concerned with. Lots of laws.
... it allows them to "never mind, erase-erase-erase" all that stupidity. (Of course, nothing actually can be "erased" from the Internet).
This stupid "right to be forgotten" isn't needed for any situation already covered by existing laws.
So what's its primary purpose? It allows stupid people who did stupid things, posted stupid videos, posted stupid pictures
Understand: This "right" is about stuff that was legally obtained and legally posted. If any of it was illegal, it could be removed using existing laws.
Everything this silly "right" is about is legal postings that the person just "doesn't like".
First, posting a person's credit card information is against the law. You don't need this proposed "right" to get such information removed.
Second, there is no law, no "right", no rule that will ever protect us from stupidity. You've got "friends" who post that you're out of town for three weeks? Sorry, by the time you find this out, it's too late for this silly "right to be forgotten" to protect you.
You are not making a good case here.
No, I don't see how this "right to be forgotten" is really needed.
In real life, no one gets the right to be forgotten. You were stupid? You were crazy? You were drunk? Sorry, the people around you will never forget that party. That's life.
Misrepresenting what the debate is about is a Strawman argument. An illogic.
- Giving out credit card information is already against the law. The proposed "right to be forgotten" is not about that.
- Spying on people's private lives is already against the law. Therefore the proposed "right to be forgotten" isn't needed to fight that situation.
- Doctors are required, by law to keep patient information confidential. Therefore the proposed "right to be forgotten" is not applicable there either.
Your examples are not examples that require this new "right to be forgotten". Your examples for why we need this new "right" are already handled by existing laws.
All your arguments don't apply. You certainly "win" against your strawman opponent, but in the real world, you're not making headway.
Why don't you talk about real situations not already covered by existing laws, that require this new "right"? Hmmm?
Companies are fighting against this "right" because:
1. It is completely impossible to implement.
2. The burden of attempting to implement is is onerous.
3. Shifting the liability from those who actually have and publish the information to those who only link to it is just wrong.
4. If the data is true, what legal "right" exists to remove it?
5. Existing laws and agreements covering defamation already exist for instances of false information.
6. In many cases, the information was created and/or released by the person themselves -- but they later regret. Sorry, too bad. It's called responsibility for your own actions. Deal with it.
I have often wished I could get a "do over" in life -- but I've never considered that I actually had the right to it.
How would this be implemented? How about people who have the same name? How about variant spellings like "Rob", "Bob", "Bobby", "Robbie", "Bobbie", "Robert", etc.? What if the person only wants "that" video removed? How about photos and videos with no names attached but with identifiable faces? The problems with this "right" are infinite.
To claim that opponents are only upset because of ad revenue is a stupid claim and a complete red herring.
Nope. No "earth-shaking" there. Yes, the Slashdot headline written by I-don't-know-who has that phrase, but I don't see NASA saying it. If you are going to make a big point of criticizing NASA for saying "earth-shaking" and "breakthrough" you just might want to find out if they actually said it. Just an idea.
So... make everything you pick up to eat look like a giant blue dog turd???
No, it damn well isn't elegant. The fact that you think so simply means that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about.
Those URLs of "known piracy sites" are the same URLs of sites that host significant amounts of perfectly legal content.
There are two scenarios that Verizon can follow:
- Invade everyone's privacy and inspect everything being downloaded, or
- Assume everyone who downloads more than a "certain amount" is "a pirate -- even when they aren't.
Whichever scenario Verizon chooses, it will be very wrong.
No, not "elegant" at all. Really, really bad. You really haven't a clue what you are talking about.
That phrase you keep using, "walled garden", I don't think it means what you think it means.
With Naziism a resurgent threat in Greece and trying to expand all across Europe, with American Republicans who express ideas as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler, it's nice to know that the Kent police are so on top of things that they can find someone to deal with these serious hate crimes.
I'll assume this is a troll -- on a thread about the suppression of free speech, a bit of flamebait to goad others to attack your "hate speech".
I'd have to say, it's a nice bit of ironic trolling.
Having just gone through a job change and being ... older ... I'd say this is perhaps the best advice so far.
Be enthusiastic about the work you will be doing. Be up to date, or close to it, on the skills that the work will require. Don't just talk about what you've done but talk about what you will do when you are hired.
And remember that a smile takes years off of your face.
One of the first lessons to be learned in a unionized shop is that doing the absolute minimum gets paid exactly as much as working really hard and trying to excel.
Second lesson to be learned is what is the absolute minimum necessary to avoid getting fired?
Third lesson is how to suck up to the union bosses so that, even when you drop below the minimum work level, they'll still protect you.
If companies conspire against employees, it's against the law, they get caught and punished. Now, why do we need unions?
LOL! Yeah, sure.
Today, unions exist to protect jobs - meaning that a poorly performing worker is protected and cannot be fired.
Technical people admire knowledge, ability and competence above anything else. And they are disgusted by incompetence, which makes everybody's work more difficult.
The idea of actually protecting incompetence (via unions) goes against the whole technical culture. No, unions are not coming to the development community.
You do your job. Many of these data centers are part of and important to communication, rescue operations, information. When you work there, you might not know how important that particular data center may be but -- you do your job.
Whatever part of the city you can keep operating is good.
Don't criticize what you know nothing about.
Umm... You don't seem to understand the difference between Google's stock Android and the customized carrier version of Android. You don't seem to understand the difference between hardware problems and Android. You don't seem to understand the difference between apps and the o/s.
You certainly may complain about "Android" all you want, but you really should attempt to differentiate between all the various players and assign the correct responsibility rather than just say "Android, horrible!" Android is really quite wonderful. Carrier customizations, not so much. Some hardware isn't very up to the task and many of the apps can be pretty bad.
To just dump all the many various factors into one lump you call "Android" isn't very useful.
There is absolutely no proof that Google does "prioritize their services and the services of their partners". Google says they don't and the anti-Google folks claim Google does (but with no proof).
Now, why is it assumed that what the anti-Google folks claim is true but what the Google folk claim is false? Why do that? Why not either assume innocence "until proven guilty" or, at least, recognize that there are opposing claims, neither of which is proven and either might be true. Why assume guilt when nothing has been proven?