Julian Assange discovers Google's given MONEY to EFF Silicon Valley’s biggest companies are an essential part of both the US state’s data-processing operation and a barely controllable element in American foreign policy, says WikiLeaks fugitive Julian Assange in his latest interview. Talking to Pando Daily (from the Ecuadorian embassy in London), Assange dubs Google, Facebook …
Speaking as an individual, and one not funded by Google or anyone else apart from by working 40 hours a week ...
The European Court judgement was silly, very silly, but nothing like as bad as it was painted. It has the same background in silliness as many other rulings from courts all over the world, it attempts to impose local rules on non-local companies.
Like it or not US and European understanding of privacy and free speech are different, from a US viewpoint telling someone they cannot tell the truth just because it embarrasses another individual makes no sense, From a traditional European view the reverse is equally silly. It is not possible for Google or any other company to be right here.
As it happens European media bodies, entirely separately from Google dislike this ruling, it makes it harder to find prurient stories, so they have painted the ruling as something it is not in order to make it seem ridiculous. On the other hand super-injunctions ARE ridiculous and equally doomed to fail. We live in a world where searching for things is easier than ever before, and that is nearly always a good thing.
Assume you're a teacher.
One day you give a kid detention for beating up their classmate.
The next day you have a false accusation made against you.
You spend six months on suspension while it's investigated and goes to the court, who find you completely innocent and cannot fathom why the case was brought in the first place.
You go to your next job as a teacher, that nobody would give you because of the ongoing investigations.
They have Googled around, dug up Facebook posts of mums from your old school claiming you're something that you're now (legally) proven not to be.
Your life is still over.
It's not as simple as "everything must stay on the Internet once it's there", neither is it as simple as "let's delete everything". As always, there should be court oversight and it should require a court-order in order to make Google do something. The number of people willing to waste the court's time would be minimal. The number of people who will just ask Google to remove that embarrassing drunk photo will be in the millions.
Oddly enough, that exact scenario is dealt with by law already. It's the end of the day so I can't be bothered searching for the exact act and section, but teachers are entitled to automatic anonymity in respect of complaints made by school pupils - up to the point where the police persuade the CPS to make a formal charge.
Not much of a protection against false allegations (the police aren't interested in the truth, only probability of conviction) but it strikes the right balance between protection against immature children and open justice.
The teacher was just an example. It doesn't have to be a teacher though does it, it could be a banker wrongly accused of fraud and, let's face it, you're not going to go out of your way to defend them but their livelihood could be laid to waste. It could be any type of wrongful accusation: rape, assault, domestic abuse, whatever. The person isn't important, the principle is.
On the OPs original point of
"The European Court judgement was silly, very silly, but nothing like as bad as it was painted. It has the same background in silliness as many other rulings from courts all over the world, it attempts to impose local rules on non-local companies."
I think you'll find Google is a local company (or rather has a local legal entity or two in Europe to avoid tax through) else they'd tell them to piss off.
Google's current business model depends upon its gathering massive amounts of metadata about everyone on the Internet. Sort of like the NSA. But that data gathering isn't the problem. The problem is that it is totally unregulated, particularly with respect to its impact of user privacy. The "right to forget" rule in Europe is a good first step, but what we really need is a more comprehensive regulatory environment that puts privacy and personal security first. Those regulations should apply both to private business and government, be incorporated into a treaty, and given some real teeth -- including a "private attorney general" provision that allows people to bring a private suit to enforce its provisions against anyone in violation. A freewheeling Internet worked as long as big power players in government and the private sector didn't have the kind of influence they now do. But we're now close to losing our freedom, and it's time to push back -- hard -- and force those who want to dominate it, and us, to back off.
In what way would appointing a regulator be pushing back? Who would appoint him if not someone related to a government or three? That apart is the right to be forgotten really a good thing? I am prepared to bet that the Jimmy Savilles and Rolf Harrises of this world would think so.
Sometimes shining a light onto people's past is a great idea and sometimes it isn't. All we need os someone who knows which is which.
He's single-handedly destroyed Wikileaks. He's also completely lacking in self-insight, which in turn makes him blind to irony. My favorit is still when the Leaker In Chief refused New York Times request to redact the names of Afghan nationals who had cooperated with the US, with the motivation that "they're informants, they deserve whatever they get".
And being holed up like that would probably send a lot of people bonkers.
However, I get a little defensive when just Google is criticised/sued for doing what almost every other search engine does.
Please, let us not forget where Google came from, and how it got to where it is - you, me, the Internet People flocked to Google because it gives us everything we want, and does so very very quickly. We also signed up for many of their services and ticked the 'I accept' box in regards to their terms and conditions.
..damn, where am i going with this...?
Google got to where they are because we supported every new innovation/service they let us use, and in return we give Google info. about ourselves...
blah, blah, blah - geez, i've really lost it now...
Right to be forgotten? Bullshit! Piss off! This is the Internet. I'd very much like that criminal conviction I have against me for carrying a screwdriver and a shifter deleted - apparently I was going to use them to break into a car (i was out looking for PC parts put out to be collected by the garbage collectors (my computer had recently been stolen during break and enter at my home))! The only stolen cars I know of are on the evening news. Now I'm finding it extremely difficult to get a job.
A bit of a fuzzed post, I know... but I've typed it now...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
