Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by danShumway on Friday April 06, 2018 @03:31PM
(#16776593)
Should the government be able to decide what facts are irrelevant to the public, or too harmful to allow the public to know? You don't think that sets a dangerous precedent for abuse?
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by Dylan16807 on Friday April 06, 2018 @03:39PM
(#16776667)
> what facts are irrelevant to the public
It should be in the form of broad categories, minimizing the risk of abuse.
> too harmful to allow the public to know
Totally different topic.
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by kuschku on Friday April 06, 2018 @04:24PM
(#16777055)
The legislative has made laws which the courts have interpreted for this task since time immortal, and the legislative will make laws which the courts interpret for this task until our civilization ends.
So, yes, they should. Without this, no rehabilitation is ever possible, every childhood mistake will affect you in your job.
The right to be forgotten only extends to people that are not public personalities, and only to facts that either are invalid (with proof), or irrelevant, but potentially harmful (e.g. you might argue that a ban you received on a minecraft server when you were 14yo, but which shows up as first result for your name on Google, would negatively impress employers, without having factual relevance).
The right to be forgotten has specifically exemptions for all the cases you mentioned.