Almost certainly. Presumably why it’s not available to euros.

Also would be a very strange to apply this so-called “right” when court records are essential to keeping organs of government accountable.

Relatively sure this would be fine in some European countries. In Germany, afaik it's an ongoing question on whether there's a copyright on the records (especially from the lawyer texts).

The names and so on are always censored anyhow, in some cases it's a bit obvious who did things though. If it's a lawsuit about a company and let's say it sells books online, maybe you can tell by 1-2 things what company it is. But for people, it's not so straight forward.

> The names and so on are always censored anyhow

This is actually starting to become a problem because computers are getting too good at their job.

Let's say a news site reports on a criminal trial of a John Smith, censored as John S. If John Smith was in any way famous before the trial and had an article written about him, that article is somewhat likely to appear in the "you may also like" sidebar when you're reading the censored one. Some news sites try to suppress this, but I'm not sure they're legally required to do so.

im im EU and it is noy blocked here

Right but it only covers American courts.

Right but it only covers American courts.

I presume since it’s free and is likely domiciled/hosted in America, the owner could probably just scrape euro records and tell the EU “lol get bent” if they made a stink, but probably doesn’t want to run the risk.

I would think so if the right to be forgotten was legal principle in the United States. It only applies in Europe and I don’t think it applies to court records that are public.

In Europe, court records aren't public in the same way as they are in the US.

They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused.

Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this.

Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.

> Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody.

I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.

Police maintains the database, so of course they can run a background check. But they don't offer it as a service and don't give away the information to anyone except the person it concerns.

> But they don't offer it as a service and don't give away the information to anyone except the person it concerns.

Here in the us I know how insubstantial this claim is. If you know enough law enforcement $10 can get you pictures of a full lookup. And this is with a fairly bare relationship.

Fair enough, if you think about it from this point of view -- yes, it's not impossible. To put your 10$ in a perspective, the last thing I heard about corrupt cops (literally last week in the news) was a bro who selling license plate readings for 500 euros through his relative (who was selling drugs). He was also smart about using somebody else's password to get them from the system, because of course requests are logged. This one got caught (obviously, this is how we know) and is getting some free accommodation paid for by my taxes. Obviously there are corrupt cops everywhere, but in Western Europe at least cops are not the underpaid power tripping assholes with guns. They also can't just get employed as a cop in a different village after being kicked out for some cop bullshit.

So maybe it's not impossible, but it's not something you would do as part of normal HR screening.

>or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job

In the Netherlands it's not even that -- you can ask for a certificate of "good behavior" with a purpose and they just say yes or no. If the purpose is employment, the form asks which sector you will be employed in, because sex offenders can still work somewhere and so do people convicted of financial fraud. You just don't want them to work in specific places, i.e. near kids or banks respectively.

Data minimization is a thing.

I believe it applies to court records, too, as long as the request for deletion is directed at an Internet search engine. The actual court record is not possible to get rid of under the GDPR, you can only make it so your court record is not returned by Google, Bing etc when searching for your name.

Someone outside Europe should make a search engine that only shows records that Euro politicians don’t want the public to see. The idea of the “right to be forgotten” is horrifying and straight out of 1984, thank god once again for the First Amendment.

I don’t know if I agree. As long as search engines are private for-profit enterprises and not a public service, I think this particular regulation is slightly more good than bad.

Tangentially, IMO any 1984 comparisons fall flat when the state is not involved in the censorship in question.

The state literally requires me to censor if you ask. I can’t speak freely what I know about you under pain of state punishment.

Are you an Internet search engine?

Jokes aside, the EU page about the GDPR right to be forgotten [1] states:

“ Here are the reasons cited in the GDPR that trump the right to erasure:

The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.[…]”

[1]https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/

Under US law, there is no such thing as a right to be forgotten, because it would infringe on the public's right to remember. This is considered especially important when what is being remembered is a lawsuit, where transparency is essential to protecting the public interest.

cases are generally expunged after X number of years (X varies state to state but there is always an X).

Generally not automatically, and not for civil lawsuits or for all crimes, and in the US expungement from court records does not obligate any third party to falsify newspaper archives, etc.: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-s...

A recent law review article on the prospects of this so-called "right" under US law is https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont..., citing https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ ("It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminalize releasing the name of a rape victim or to permit a private right of action against the press for doing so."), and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12.... See also https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13....

> because it would infringe on the public's right to remember

? What are you referring to? I've never heard of such a concept.

Think about it. If you can, employ reasoning at a deeper level than just repeating slogans and comparing them for lexical equality.

I'm not sure what a right is if not a "slogan".

Then why would you comment in the first place? Just to troll, I suppose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are an important concept in law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.

The history of social conflicts has often involved attempts to define and redefine rights. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived".