Insights on the First Three Years of the Right to Be Forgotten at Google

Re:Insights on the First Three Years of the Right to Be Forg... by dantheman on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @05:44AM (#16472406)

We need to be careful with our words. There is no "Right to be forgotten". Framing[1] denotes the battlefield terrain, if you accept the frame you've already lost. A better title might be: Insights on the First Three Years of European Censorship of Google.

1 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/magazine/the-framing-wars....

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insights on the First Three Years of the Right to Be Forg... by onion2k on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @07:09AM (#16472736)

There is no "Right to be forgotten".

In the context of Google's search results, according to the European Union's "Data Protection Directive" that's based on an interpretation of the OECD's definition of privacy, yes there is. You can't just declare there isn't such a thing as the Right to be Forgotten as fact. You may choose not to recognise it, but there definitely is such an idea that many people believe is a right.

In a wider context there are many countries where case law implies there is a Right to be Forgotten too, including the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insights on the First Three Years of the Right to Be Forg... by flipbrad on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @08:16AM (#16473065)

Not only is it (to some extent) found in existing law, but from May 25th this year, GDPR Article 17 would like to have a word: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:O...

It's not just an EU thing, either - several other courts, as far away as Japan, have also imposed similar rights/obligations.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insights on the First Three Years of the Right to Be Forg... by ginko on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @08:01AM (#16472980)

Why do you consider this a battlefield and why are you on the side of a multinational spying corporation?

[ Parent | on HN ]