Re: [Mailman-Users] [Mailman-cabal] GDPR
On 05/17/2018 02:56 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: FWIW and IMHO, I think we are in violent agreement here. :-) In the old-school life: the sender (because s/he said it on her/his free will) - I hope;-). But the person who overheard it may tell the story to a third person. And it's just/only hear-say - even if it's actually 100% correct (which it is almost never ever the case). And there starts actually the real "forgetting" or "doubts" ... I agree that fan-out can be a problem. IMHO the root cause is the person that said it, the sender. But in a "everything is written" world, that is massively different: In the old-school world, a "written proof" had a quite large value because it wasn't trivial to have such a thing. Nowadays - with almost every communication over the Internet - it's the normal, that there is a "written proof" aka recorded/logged/whatever. That's an interesting point, but I'm not seeing who's at fault, the person who overheard what I said (the archive) or me for saying it in a non-secure manner (the sender)? I'm not diving into differences of "how some judge may value some so- called proof" in some given (somewhat Western) country, but most people - even in Spring 2018 - don't realize, what's really going on and try to get back the world from the 1960s (or so;-) - well, "thinking before talking" was always a hard job;-) True. A court order may "force" you to not tell it to anyone but it can't make you forget it (or write it down and hide it somewhere safe). Where force = order under some form of penalty, sure. So in general: No. And that's exactly the problem with the "right to be forgotten". :-) Good ideas usually start to have problems when they are taken too far. Of course. But only for (somewhat obvious) very good (including legal) reason like really hard law issues like - at least in .at and .de - Nazi stuff and/or (everywhere I hope) certain forms of pr0n. Even with those issues, the court can only order you, under some penalty, to not do something. They still can't cause you to unsee or forget something. At least I'm not aware of any such technology yet. (My ignorance of such technology does not preclude it from existing.) But for some claims of "please remove my email address?"? If that email address can be found (via Google) on hundreds of sites, the removal of one instance doesn't change anything. Ooops, and a chicken-egg problem I think it does. IMHO it's the issue of multiple people doing the same wrong thing does not make the thing in question correct. Case and point, is it wrong to ask someone specific to stop spamming me when considering that multiple other people could be spamming me? Or, more along the lines of your example, saluting in a Nazi-esq manner? (I'm not saying I agree with anything there in, I'm just using it as an example.) That question should be answered by some copyright/authors right lawyer. Hum. I would be interested in what their take is. I suspect it's going to come down to misrepresentation. Either trying to falsely claim credit for someone else's work, or trying to attribute something to someone who didn't say it. Short of significant persuation to the contrary, I'm going to continue to believe that admins / owners of system have the right to modify what was said in very specific cases when it comes to what enters / passes through / is stored on their systems. IMHO this MUST be done in a manner that makes it clear that this was done. Yes, and everyone writes that in the mailinglists charta (including that all mails go into a public archive, are never edited, censored, deleted, etc.). Just from that point of view, everyone sending mails to the mailinglist has implicitly agreed to the rules including the publication in a Google-indexed archive. I have some issues with that. - Corporate policy, regional laws, technical capabilities, etc. can conflict. - Agreeing to a E.U.L.A. does not mean that you actually understand it. (I'm hearing where this is being starting to be challenged in courts.) - Index ability is independent of publicity. BTW: I cannot do everything I want with it because I cannot choose to plain simply ignore modification requests from a court. Hence regional laws above. Everyone can claim a lot of things - the hard question is how to proove it;-) Yep. Any serious business won't send me any "newsletters" if I request that without any legal backing (if only that I continue to buy from it in the future and don't tell anyone that they ignore such simple things - and because it's "just the right thing to do"(TM)). Sadly, I've seen legitimate businesses fail and do exactly that. Use contact details specifically for the contracted service inappropriately for marketing reasons. Yup, but there are other companies or folks using selling addresses and other personal data (if only for "scientific purposes"[0]). I feel
Re: [Mailman-Users] [Mailman-cabal] GDPR
On Mon, 2018-05-14 at 16:54 -0600, Grant Taylor via Mailman-Users wrote: [...] > On 05/14/2018 04:11 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > > Seriously, these folks don't know what they imply. > > Nope. Politicians (almost) never fully understand what's going on. FWIW and IMHO, I think we are in violent agreement here. [...] > Who's at fault in this scenario: The person who overheard what I said > (the archive) or me for saying it in a non-secure manner (the sender)? In the old-school life: the sender (because s/he said it on her/his free will) - I hope;-). But the person who overheard it may tell the story to a third person. And it's just/only hear-say - even if it's actually 100% correct (which it is almost never ever the case). And there starts actually the real "forgetting" or "doubts" ... But in a "everything is written" world, that is massively different: In the old-school world, a "written proof" had a quite large value because it wasn't trivial to have such a thing. Nowadays - with almost every communication over the Internet - it's the normal, that there is a "written proof" aka recorded/logged/whatever. I'm not diving into differences of "how some judge may value some so- called proof" in some given (somewhat Western) country, but most people - even in Spring 2018 - don't realize, what's really going on and try to get back the world from the 1960s (or so;-) - well, "thinking before talking" was always a hard job;-) > Is there any legal method that I can use to compel a person to > forget=20 > what they overheard me say? A court order may "force" you to not tell it to anyone but it can't make you forget it (or write it down and hide it somewhere safe). So in general: No. And that's exactly the problem with the "right to be forgotten". > > For the author's rights side to it: I answer an email (and happen > > to quote just the relevant parts of other emails) to a public > > mailinglist with a public archive. > > > > I don't think that the archive's admin or anyone else should have > > the right (let alone the duty) to edit or change my email in there > > - or even worse: remove it completely. > > I disagree. > > I believe that the admins / owners of the archive have the right to > remove something from the archive (or prevent it from going into the > archive in the first place). Of course. But only for (somewhat obvious) very good (including legal) reason like really hard law issues like - at least in .at and .de - Nazi stuff and/or (everywhere I hope) certain forms of pr0n. But for some claims of "please remove my email address?"? If that email address can be found (via Google) on hundreds of sites, the removal of one instance doesn't change anything. Ooops, and a chicken-egg problem > I don't believe that admins / owners have the general right to modify > what was said. ACK. > I do believe that the admins / owners have the right to modify what was > said in very specific cases, like REDACTING something. As long as they That question should be answered by some copyright/authors right lawyer. > do so in a manner that is clearly identifiable that something was REDACTED. ACK. > After all, it is their system, they administer / own it and can do > what ever they want to with it. Yes, and everyone writes that in the mailinglists charta (including that all mails go into a public archive, are never edited, censored, deleted, etc.). Just from that point of view, everyone sending mails to the mailinglist has implicitly agreed to the rules including the publication in a Google-indexed archive. BTW: I cannot do *everything* I want with it because I cannot choose to plain simply ignore modification requests from a court. > They should go out of their way to not misrepresent what you said / > did. > > They could also claim that your message was modified before it got to > them. Everyone can claim a lot of things - the hard question is how to proove it;-) > > PS: The whole "right to be forgotten" idea is absurd per se - think > > about private archives (and I don't think about 3-letter > > organizations only). > > Can't we define the public archive to be an necessary and important > > part of a public mailinglist and be done with it?! For almost > > everyone else some "important reason" is good enough too. > > I feel like the idea that you can compel someone to forget something > is absurd. > > I think you can compel businesses to no longer use your contact > information. Any serious business won't send me any "newsletters" if I request that without any legal backing (if only that I continue to buy from it in the future and don't tell anyone that they ignore such simple things - and because it's "just the right thing to do"(TM)). > Which is my naive understanding of part of what the spirit of GDPR > is. Yup, but there are other companies or folks using selling addresses and other personal data (if only for "scientific purposes"[0]). > I can see a scenario where a company
