Internet 'Right to be Forgotten' debate hits Spain

[Sporkman]

Their ranks include a plastic surgeon, a prison guard and a high school principal. All are Spanish, but have little else in common except this: They want old Internet references about them that pop up in Google searches wiped away...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_internet_right_to_be_forgotten

[PhillyPhil]

This is impractical, if not impossible (even if the EU did this, it couldn't apply to any sites based outside the EU!), and is going to be used to censor *public* information.

[CharlesA]

Anything you put out on the internet is "public." If you don't want someone finding it, then don't put it out there.

[3Miro]

None of the cases give out wrong information, everything is public and accurate. Removing this information is censorship.

The only case that could have some merit is the prison guard. Although, in that case, the government should have kept his information from going public.

People have to learn that everything that they ever post on-line is there forever. Don't put embarrassing pictures or anything of that nature on-line.

[forrestcupp]

Anything you put out on the internet is "public." If you don't want someone finding it, then don't put it out there.

What about the many cases where things get put out there without one's consent.

[NCLI]

What about the many cases where things get put out there without one's consent.

Too bad. Once it's out there, how exactly do you propose we stop it from being distributed?

[donkyhotay]

There is no right answer to this, people do deserve their privacy but the ability to just "remove" data like that would be abused. On the whole I would rather have to deal with lack of privacy then risk censorship problems. While you may not be able to control everything that others post about you online some common sense in releasing personal information will go a long ways to keeping yourself safe.

[forrestcupp]

Too bad. Once it's out there, how exactly do you propose we stop it from being distributed?

That's true, but it doesn't mean we have to be jerks about it, especially if it's not their fault.

While you can't stop the mass distribution of information, in some cases it is enough to remove the original source. Then if you can't stop it before it gets copied, you're just out of luck.

[PhillyPhil]

What about the many cases where things get put out there without one's consent.

Other privacy laws will have to handle that: whoever put the info out there can be charged (if anything untoward has happened).

Stuff gets published about people without their consent all the time - there's probably not a single newspaper story published that doesn't upset at least one of the parties involved.
There's some German guy who tried suing Wikipedia to remove the page about him because he didn't like people knowing that he murdered someone, but I don't think that's a valid reason for censorship.

[3Miro]

Other privacy laws will have to handle that: whoever put the info out there can be charged (if anything untoward has happened).

Stuff gets published about people without their consent all the time - there's probably not a single newspaper story published that doesn't upset at least one of the parties involved.
There's some German guy who tried suing Wikipedia to remove the page about him because he didn't like people knowing that he murdered someone, but I don't think that's a valid reason for censorship.

+1.

If something is published without your consent, then the person responsible should be brought to justice and you should be compensated for whatever damages you may have incurred. This includes increasing the amount of compensation to account for the fact that information stays on the web forever.

[Artemis3]

Their only solution: Have the state change their IDs; like they do to witnesses elsewhere... And this time, stop posting your life online :P

[psusi]

There is no debate. The phrase itself is absolute nonsense. Nobody has any right to control what other people think or remember.

I can just imagine OJ Simpson trying to expunge all of the newspaper articles about his trial from every library and archive all over the world. Absolutely ridiculous.

[forrestcupp]

There is no debate. The phrase itself is absolute nonsense. Nobody has any right to control what other people think or remember.

I can just imagine OJ Simpson trying to expunge all of the newspaper articles about his trial from every library and archive all over the world. Absolutely ridiculous.

There is a difference between public records and private situations, which unfortunately also get shared without consent.

[NovaAesa]

That's just nature of the beast, once you put something in its mouth, it will be projectile vomited up for all eternity.

[psusi]

There is a difference between public records and private situations, which unfortunately also get shared without consent.

Once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back. By definition, it is no longer private once the general public knows about it.

[forrestcupp]

Once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back. By definition, it is no longer private once the general public knows about it.

That doesn't mean it's ok, though. If someone revealed one of your deepest secrets to the entire world, you're not just going to be ok with it because "the cat is out of the bag" and that's how things work.

[Zero2Nine]

Anything you put out on the internet is "public." If you don't want someone finding it, then don't put it out there.

True. But maybe it wasn't you making it public. Facebook is a good example of that situation. If you are not on Facebook your friends can upload photographs, make them public and tag you in them. Without a Facebook account you can't even untag yourself.

[psusi]

Whether you like it or not doesn't matter; public knowledge is public knowledge. There just isn't anything to "debate" when it comes to people UNlearning things about you. If you want something to stay secret, then don't tell anyone.