A side aspect of the decreasing quality of search results through the
continuous manipulation of search engines could be the return of the analog. It
is also the end of the belief that one can "google" everything. Analog search
skills will remain a valuable skill in order to dig out data that is of public
interest but no longer discoverable in the digital space.
Waltraut Ritter
Opendata Hong Kong
On Tuesday, 20 May 2014, 19:45, martin biehl <[email protected]> wrote:
One thing in the official press release struck me:
<quote>
the
Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to remove
links to web pages
that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a
person from the list of
results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s name.
</quote>
Does this mean any search including the person's name, or just searches only
containing the name? So if I searched directly for "social security debts
Costeja González" would the search engine be allowed to continue returning the
result? Probably not, but is there a potential solution combining the right to
be forgotten (more like a right to the possibility of being forgotten then) and
the public interest here? I am ignoring any associated technical difficulties
for the moment.
As long as only searching for the name returns the undesired results, their
content will hardly ever be forgotten ever, but if they only show up in more
specific searches then only people that are actively looking for e.g. criminal
records will find it. So there is a (bigger) chance that the undesired results
are forgotten and still a possibility for the public to find it relatively
easily.
I am not really convinced this works, but it would be nice to have a good
combination of forgetting and archiving.
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Rufus Pollock <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20 May 2014 07:22, Tony Bowden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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.
>
>
>Good point Tony.
>
>> 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.
>
>
>Excellent point here - I was also going to mention this re convictions. The
>interesting questions are the interaction between those technical challenges
>(and the differential burdens they may impose) and those worthwhile goals.
>
>> 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
>
>
>Very good points too. It is quite correct that one has legal (and moral)
>obligations to correct "libellous" and generally incorrect information. I
>think the issue in this case is that one was essentially working with official
>or semi-official info which one would normally assume to be reliable plus the
>processing in an automated way (no editorial function).
>
>
>As such, the potential scope of the ruling is both very broad and could
>potentially have a significant negative impact on many projects (including
>open data ones) that prepare databases by collecting and processing data from
>various sources.
>
>
>Rufus
>_______________________________________________
>okfn-discuss mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
>Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
_______________________________________________
okfn-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
