Right to be Forgotten

[Goodchild]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_internet_right_to_be_forgotten

In a case that Google Inc. and privacy experts call a first of its kind, Spain's Data Protection Agency has ordered the search engine giant to remove links to material on about 90 people. The information was published years or even decades ago but is available to anyone via simple searches.

...

Some of the information is embarrassing, some seems downright banal. A few cases involve lawsuits that found life online through news reports, but whose dismissals were ignored by media and never appeared on the Internet. Others concern administrative decisions published in official regional gazettes.

I've never really thought about this until reading the article, but with the advent of the internet and search engines every little thing we do or is said about us that garners enough interest to make it's way online is there forever. Mistakes or 'phases' we go through when young can now haunt us forever rather than being filed in the dusty cupboards of our memories.

Do we have a right for these things to be forgotten and removed from the public sphere or is the integrity of the internet a higher priority?

[munnki]

I've thought about this too and have come to two conclusions - one of them probably too late...

i) always retain your alter-ego (or alter-egos) when online and never give your information to anyone without an intermediatery false or transitionary identity...

ii) our privacy is being eroded at the same time - and that's the privacy of a lot of people - so if your embarrasing shit is out there - so is his/hers/theirs - this has implications for how we can treat online data we gather on others too - it seems to me that since we all have our pants down at the same time we are safer for it - but perhaps not...

[rog]

I think the important thing is that people realise is when they say something online under their real name it is effectively a matter of public record & possibly going to be about for future historians to ponder over - the longer term implications of this for the individual and society are as yet unknown.

eta: http://liveweb.web.archive.org/http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?p=213346&#post213346

[neilstone40]

It is quite frightening what stuff is out there and how unregulated it seems to be.

I had a particularly worrying incident a few years back when, following a disagreement with a former 'employee' (I'm being deliberately vague here) they decided to publish information about me on a local newspaper's discussion forum.

The person in question was part of a newspaper story that they themselves had initiated and was attracting a lot of derisory comments in the paper's discussion forums (particularly from people that knew the person in r/l).

They then incorrectly came to the conclusion that I was one of the participants and decided that they would 'out me'.

I was following the discussion as I was aware of the true circumstances of the story but had neither posted or even registered on the site. Had I not been following it, I would have been none the wiser that the details were online.

The information they published included :


myself and my wife's occupation and place of work
our full home address
home telephone & mobile numbers
names, ages, description and school of my kids


The person involved knew that I'd had problems in the past with people trying to track me down because of my job and that I'd previously had threats against myself, my wife and our kids as a result. They decided this was an ideal way for revenge, albeit against the wrong person. A truly twisted bastard...

I contacted the newspaper by email but got no response. In the end I had to contact one of the reporters on the nightime newsdesk who managed to get the reference removed and the offenders IP address blocked. In all it took over 3 hours but was one of the most frantic and frustrating experiences of my life.

As a result I have got into the habit of googling myself from time to time and have, on the odd occasion, found references to myself on various 'lost friends' boards where people are trying to trick others into revealing information. It's far from easy to get the information removed and the police are less than helpful as they've confused about whether an offence has been committed simply by attempting to track someone down.

I know how easy it is to track someone using the 'net as I've used it before in work to track people down (legitimately and with good reason I might add).

Sometimes I do actually hate the internet...

[Jobar]

A difficult question.

I think that, given the ever-increasing power of information technology, we just have to deal with the fact that there's probably some embarrassing facts about ourselves available somewhere. But as long as those facts are generally available, and not kept as the preserve of special interests which may run counter to our own, it's difficult to draw any lines as to what should be erased and what shouldn't.

"Knowledge is power"- we need to keep that power from being concentrated in the hands of a privileged few. It may be that it ought to be open to anyone curious enough to seek it out.

I think that the erasure of information on the demand of those for whom it may be embarrassing or troublesome is a very bad precedent.

[Berthold]

Alas, Asimov and Heinlein are no longer alive to comment on things like this. They were good friends, but "agreed to disagree" on certain matters.

ETA: And, of course, as sf master writers they did not foresee the web. :D

[BioBeing]

In the case of information which should never have been put on the web (as in neil's case), every effort should be made by a responsible company to remove it as quickly as possible.

In the case of people having lawsuits brought against them - that info should not be taken down. Of course, a responsible media would seek to redress the issue by publishing an amendment if the person was found innocent. In an ideal world...

[Xero]

I think that the erasure of information on the demand of those for whom it may be embarrassing or troublesome is a very bad precedent.

May I ask why?

[Jobar]

Mainly- who decides?

If any authority can control what information is retained and what is discarded, that authority might be corrupted. And even if it isn't, consider the provenance of the phrase "down the memory hole."

[Here Rests A Cemetery]

Usually people that end up on the internet because they're stupid.

Don't make a scene, gain negative attention, and complain. You're the initial fall of the domino row.

[UncaYimmy]

always retain your alter-ego (or alter-egos) when online and never give your information to anyone without an intermediatery false or transitionary identity...
Better still, make yourself easily identifiable, just like in "real" life. You are who you are. Take responsibility for your words.

[munnki]

always retain your alter-ego (or alter-egos) when online and never give your information to anyone without an intermediatery false or transitionary identity...
Better still, make yourself easily identifiable, just like in "real" life. You are who you are. Take responsibility for your words.


This is bullshit from start to finish... there are always penalties for being direct with people and I have never met anybody who is immediate and direct with those around them all the time... whether they are gay people who play themselves down to fit in in the workplace, atheists who keep silent because their culture promotes violence against them, religious people who repress their more fervent beliefs because they know they will make others think them strange, people who disguise their dislikes of another from another, bosses who disguise their intentions towards workers, colleagues or friends who disguise their romantic or sexual impulses....

We are, as Shakespeare well noted, always playing roles for each other - always wearing masks and always changing what is behind the mask...

Whenever I hear 'be yourself' in a contemporary context it just makes me think of some f£$king advertisement for iPhone or Nike - because that is the value the statement now has... I think the average person finds it hard to tell 'themselves' apart from the series of programmed functions, hungers, desires and ideas ploughed into them through the media, the educational system, the range of advertisements, the ideology that surrounds them - their culture - their language...and etc...

It is at once a infinitely useless and endlessly ambiguious thing to say to somebody... we live in post-modern societies... nobody knows who they really are anymore...they have to get at it through textbooks which decode what they suppose to be reality...

It's nothing personal... but if you reflect on the comment 'be yourself' and reflect on the millions of impulses, desires, ticks, odd thoughts and feelings that make up a moment of your existence - you'll find the statement rather odd... those who succeed, it seems to me (echoing Shakespeare) have found a way to play the role of themselves exceedingly well... which is not, in my view, anything like the vague dictum 'be yourself' which requires figuring out what the hell that thing is...

[Resurrectus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_internet_right_to_be_forgotten

In a case that Google Inc. and privacy experts call a first of its kind, Spain's Data Protection Agency has ordered the search engine giant to remove links to material on about 90 people. The information was published years or even decades ago but is available to anyone via simple searches.

...

Some of the information is embarrassing, some seems downright banal. A few cases involve lawsuits that found life online through news reports, but whose dismissals were ignored by media and never appeared on the Internet. Others concern administrative decisions published in official regional gazettes.

I've never really thought about this until reading the article, but with the advent of the internet and search engines every little thing we do or is said about us that garners enough interest to make it's way online is there forever. Mistakes or 'phases' we go through when young can now haunt us forever rather than being filed in the dusty cupboards of our memories.

Do we have a right for these things to be forgotten and removed from the public sphere or is the integrity of the internet a higher priority?

I'm afraid that this touches on the issue that humans are not born with inherent 'rights' engraved in their DNA. No more so than the United States had for their 'justified' invasion of Iraq for search of invisible weapons of mass destruction. Or no more so than a dog's entitlement to dine on quail each thursday, nor even that dog's in general are entitled to lesser quality living conditions than humans for that matter.

[UncaYimmy]

always retain your alter-ego (or alter-egos) when online and never give your information to anyone without an intermediatery false or transitionary identity...
Better still, make yourself easily identifiable, just like in "real" life. You are who you are. Take responsibility for your words.


This is bullshit from start to finish... there are always penalties for being direct with people and I have never met anybody who is immediate and direct with those around them all the time... whether they are gay people who play themselves down to fit in in the workplace, atheists who keep silent because their culture promotes violence against them, religious people who repress their more fervent beliefs because they know they will make others think them strange, people who disguise their dislikes of another from another, bosses who disguise their intentions towards workers, colleagues or friends who disguise their romantic or sexual impulses....

We are, as Shakespeare well noted, always playing roles for each other - always wearing masks and always changing what is behind the mask...

Whenever I hear 'be yourself' in a contemporary context it just makes me think of some f£$king advertisement for iPhone or Nike - because that is the value the statement now has... I think the average person finds it hard to tell 'themselves' apart from the series of programmed functions, hungers, desires and ideas ploughed into them through the media, the educational system, the range of advertisements, the ideology that surrounds them - their culture - their language...and etc...

It is at once a infinitely useless and endlessly ambiguious thing to say to somebody... we live in post-modern societies... nobody knows who they really are anymore...they have to get at it through textbooks which decode what they suppose to be reality...

It's nothing personal... but if you reflect on the comment 'be yourself' and reflect on the millions of impulses, desires, ticks, odd thoughts and feelings that make up a moment of your existence - you'll find the statement rather odd... those who succeed, it seems to me (echoing Shakespeare) have found a way to play the role of themselves exceedingly well... which is not, in my view, anything like the vague dictum 'be yourself' which requires figuring out what the hell that thing is...


Who are you arguing with? Certainly not me since I never said be yourself. I said to take responsibility for your words everywhere you utter them. The Internet is not a place - it's a medium for communication. Anonymity is mostly an illusion. Sure, if you're extremely careful all the time, you stand a good chance of staying anonymous.

Truth is, though, the more you write, the more likely a passive investigation (searching via Google and reading) will reveal your identity. If someone wants to target a specific (say) forum user, an active investigation (social engineering, asking around, targeted websites) can be used to identify the person.

[Prosthetic Head]

I love the unbridled angst.:)

[Rie]

Olivia Newton-John, Aussie singer, has had a mishap ridden love life and one of her beloved ones justdisappeared for years. OH but they'll fing ya! An investigative reporter was intrigued and last month he was sprung leading a low key good life, leaving of course many debts to be settled. Don't know if Livvy will pursue this.

I don't for one minute believe that one can contrive a disapearing act. (I've often wished that the ground would swallow me up but that's different and it never succeeded however fervent my wish!:rolleyes:

[Berthold]

I don't for one minute believe that one can contrive a disapearing act.
I think it happens, not too rarely: After all, it's usually the local authority that issues things like birth certificates. So, all one would have to do is bribe the local police captain in some third world backwater. Much cheaper than a prime minister, and few accomplices who know about it.

[Resurrectus]

[QUOTE=UncaYimmy;213678][QUOTE=munnki;213344]I think the average person finds it hard to tell 'themselves' apart from the series of programmed functions, hungers, desires and ideas ploughed into them through the media, the educational system, the range of advertisements, the ideology that surrounds them - their culture - their language...and etc...

Wow.

[Resurrectus]

I said to take responsibility for your words everywhere you utter them.

This should not be disputed. However, the problem with this is that, at which point, exactly, do 'your' words cease to be 'your' words? The issue has been of interest lately. As society inclines to live more and more of its life in cyber space, people quite easily become too relaxed with what, and how much personal information they disclose online. And too often, they do so completely oblivious to the vulnerability that they subject themselves to thereon. For example, a man thought that it would be wise to post his uncontrolled, corybantic weekend of drunken revel for the world to see. Well, his employer found his profile on facebook and the man lost his job. Similar scenarios may play out when one is applying for a job, and the employer feels that he would like to know a little more about the individual.

Back to the problem, people may unwisely share such information online, which may some day come back to cause them all sorts of trouble. It may be seen as inequitable, that although 'they' did this or said that however many years ago, 'they' are to hold ownership of those words despite the fact that they may now be completely different people to those that actually said those words all those years back. Of course, the average layperson is not aware that one is not the same identity throughout the span of their life. But indeed, if one looks further than the limited, uncritical concepts of 'self' that the general public holds, it is nonetheless true that one person today may wake up another person the next day, or this change might be quantified in as little as a second, or a picosecond for that matter.

Given that, how is it justified that an individual is made culpable of things he did years ago when he is now a different person?

The Internet is not a place - it's a medium for communication. Anonymity is mostly an illusion.

Indeed.

[Resurrectus]

I love the unbridled angst.:)

On an unrelated matter, may I address the meaning of your signature?

[UncaYimmy]

I said to take responsibility for your words everywhere you utter them.

This should not be disputed. However, the problem with this is that, at which point, exactly, do 'your' words cease to be 'your' words? The issue has been of interest lately. As society inclines to live more and more of its life in cyber space, people quite easily become too relaxed with what, and how much personal information they disclose online. And too often, they do so completely oblivious to the vulnerability that they subject themselves to thereon. For example, a man thought that it would be wise to post his uncontrolled, corybantic weekend of drunken revel for the world to see. Well, his employer found his profile on facebook and the man lost his job. Similar scenarios may play out when one is applying for a job, and the employer feels that he would like to know a little more about the individual.

Back to the problem, people may unwisely share such information online, which may some day come back to cause them all sorts of trouble. It may be seen as inequitable, that although 'they' did this or said that however many years ago, 'they' are to hold ownership of those words despite the fact that they may now be completely different people to those that actually said those words all those years back. Of course, the average layperson is not aware that one is not the same identity throughout the span of their life. But indeed, if one looks further than the limited, uncritical concepts of 'self' that the general public holds, it is nonetheless true that one person today may wake up another person the next day, or this change might be quantified in as little as a second, or a picosecond for that matter.

Given that, how is it justified that an individual is made culpable of things he did years ago when he is now a different person?


I think that last part depends entirely upon the individual, what was said, and who is judging the individual. Maybe the person has changed, but in my experience 180 turnarounds are the exception rather than the norm. It should be up to the parties involved to work it out. If somebody wants to judge me harshly today for the things I said when I was an impulsive, testosterone-laden college student, that's their decision. I think in most cases it would be a bad decision, but that's nobody's business except our own.

I think the most realistic and pragmatic approach is to educate people that the Internet is real life! You are what you write, and unlike the spoken word, what you write is likely to echo for years to come all around the world. Not only would this approach lessen the chances of something coming back to bit a person on the ass, it would make the Internet a more pleasant medium. It gets old running into so many people who post like a beer-brave teen at a football game.

[MrFungus420]

I think that the erasure of information on the demand of those for whom it may be embarrassing or troublesome is a very bad precedent.

May I ask why?

It would allow any politician to "clean-up" his/her record.
It would allow every convicted criminal to demand that all information about them online be deleted.
Every news story that was less than flattering to a person could be censored.
Neo-Nazis could demand the removal of everything derogatory about Hitler.