Hacker News Reader

Comment by rolltiide | Hacker News Reader

> 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

View on HN

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

The use has broadened as member states interpret it differently

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

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.

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.

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.

Yeah thats my response under that comment too

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?

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.

>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?

Some* crimes anyway.

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

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

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.

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?

Once the crime is spent no.

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com