[cortesoft]

I really hate the 'right to be forgotten'... it infringes on other people's 'right to remember'

I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.

[jasode]

>I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.

I previously asked[0] how EU would treat a convicted rapist such as (American) Brock Turner. The reply by commenter IAmEveryone says the law would prohibit the victim from writing about it. (If the scenario is not clear, a victim's blogpost is not a search index and yet it would still be prohibited.)

Since my April 2018 comment, that hypothetical scenario has been made more concrete when the victim later revealed herself as Chanel Miller on September 2019. She's been fervent in sharing her story (her book) in media outlets including websites.

I don't know of any reliable surveys but I'm guessing the majority of Europeans would favor prohibiting her from sharing her story (RTBF) to protect Brock Turner, but the majority of Americans would not.

(I'm sure there's a similar notorious crime & victim in Europe analogous to USA's Brock Turner but I don't have an example.)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776734

[unionpivo]

In such specific situation, EU law is quite clear and right to be forgotten does not apply. Since its in public interest.

It would only apply in case it was later found that rapist was framed and then exonerated. In such case he could claim right to be forgotten, to get all of old false articles removed. Of course people try to abuse this, just like everything else (like using american DMCA to kill videos, articles they don't like)

[unionpivo]

No EU law is stopping you.

But if you write an article about someone, that contain outdated or false information, you can use right to be forgotten, to at least remove it from search indexes.

Article is still accessible, you can still link it, on HN or reddit or wikipedia, you just wont find it on google search results.

[cortesoft]

What makes information 'outdated'?

[GhettoMaestro]

Imagine if Jeffrey Epstein had access to a legal mechanism which enabled him to attempt scrubbing of news/article/forum references of him from the web, beyond just his narrow legal conviction.

Chances are he would still be banging 12 year olds today and Bill Clinton would be smiling ear to ear. (JK obviously on that last one, but my below point will alleviate your suspicions.)

You may not like some speech, namely against you. I may not like certain speech either. But to establish this kind of legal precedent is foolish. What is next, prior restraint with regards to anyone mentioned in an article? I'm sure Big Daddy Donnie Trump would love that one lol.

Free speech is messy as fuck. Look at this "fake news" stuff for the past 3 years. Is it really fake? Debatable. Is it news? In most cases, yes.

Legitimate question I pose: Does free speech extend to deep fakes? (Finally those believing in the Clintons being child sacrificing cultists can be proven true!) This has the potential to get real messy real fast. Hopefully someone with a IEEE/DARPA-level big brain figures out a way to validate videos etc.

[paul7986]

It's a ridiculous law that will have to change once deepfakes become more prevalent. Some type of real identity on the web I believe will need to take hold.

The Internet is a public forum would do and say the same things in public you do online?

[rolltiide]

> I should be able to talk about my experience with someone else in a public forum, even if that information is something that person doesn't want others to know.

Europe right to be forgotten only applies to publicly indexed searches, not the content - according to the top court

Nothing you said seems to be the reality that exists

So just bookmark a page and revisit it later, the tools have existed since the 90s

[Hitton]

That's not true, just yesterday there was trending article[1] about journalist who was forced to take down the article.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21047308

[rolltiide]

The use has broadened as member states interpret it differently

The EU top court has been consistent that only de-referencing needs to occur

[cortesoft]

So I can write about it, but I can't help anyone find it to read?

I am not saying I have the right to a personal diary, I am saying I should have the right to tell my story to whoever I want, and to share it however widely I want, and to help other people find what I have to say however I want.

[rolltiide]

You still have that right, stop making up arm chair legalese. Your Search Engine Optimization is supposed to fail within the EU. Telling people in person, telling people in group chats, telling people anywhere you want is fine.

According to the top court, the different service indexing all that stuff, within the EU, has to de-reference.

[cortesoft]

You can call it 'arm chair legalese', but there is a sister comment that has an example of someone being forced to take down an article they wrote.

And forcing search engines to remove the content is certainly, in my opinion, infringing on my right to share my story.

[rolltiide]

Yeah thats my response under that comment too

[curt15]

But if there were more people like Kim Peek who could recall anything they read, like a walking, talking, search engine, should they be muzzled online?

[hdfbdtbcdg]

If what they say breaks a law yes. For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime. This is a classic instance where right to be forgotten is used.

[curt15]

>For example in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders act means that once a crime is spent it is an offence to discuss publish information about the crime.

But in that case, wouldn't a news website that provides its archives of old crime stories for the public to read be guilty of that offence? If certain information is illegal to be disseminated, why isn't its actual source held liable or otherwise subject to takedown?

[thfuran]

If it's already illegal, then I don't see how a right to be forgotten changes anything in that case.

[hdfbdtbcdg]

It means the search engines can't stick their fingers in their ears and ignore real people's legitimate needs to put their past mistakes behind them.

[cortesoft]

What about people's legitimate need to share the wrongs that people have done to them? Or people's legitimate need to know someone's history?

Imagine you meet someone on a dating site, and they assault you on your date. They serve their time, and now have a 'right to be forgotten'.

Do future potential dates not get to know that their date that night has been convicted of assault against someone else, also on a first date? Am I not allowed to warn those people?

[thfuran]

That makes no sense. If it was already illegal to publish that information then they already weren't allowed to do that. Maybe this law has harsher penalties but, generally speaking, making something double-illegal isn't meaningful.

[cortesoft]

This is so bizarre to me. So lets say I am assaulted, and that person serves time and then is freed. After a certain period of time, I am no longer allowed to write about my experience online? I am not allowed to warn people, "hey, this guy assaulted me 10 years ago!".

Now, suppose he was never convicted. Am I allowed to write about my experience now?

[EpicEng]

Some* crimes anyway.

[hdfbdtbcdg]

Any sentence under threshold will become spent. Some crimes will still show on DBS checks.