On 20 May 2014 02:06, Anna Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > My position is that a fact is a fact and should remain so.
Most facts don't fall into the "universally true for all time" category. This isn't just pedantry — a lot of the discussion in this area comes down to this sort of framing. We naturally treat some facts as having an obvious time component, but generally aren't as good at doing so with classes of information with a longer half life. > If it's been released into the public sphere it should stay there. Many countries already have laws that recognise a value in allowing information to decay — e.g. expunged records or spent convictions under Rehabilitation of Offenders laws. There are certainly interesting technical challenges to achieving things like this in practice, but that doesn't mean that the underlying goal isn't a worthwhile one. > Secondly, putting the > liability onto intermediaries rather than content owner (person/entity who > made the decision to make the data public) is a dangerous precedent Anyone republishing information — even just in a passing reference to it — is already open to lots of legal challenges in most jurisdictions anyway (e.g. libel). I don't believe anyone is claiming that the intermediaries must proactively decide what they can and can't publish — simply that (as with lots of other areas), once their attention is drawn to problematic material, they have to remove it. Tony _______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
