But what about my Right to Remember ?
This is the world we now live in. We have to get used to it. Its a disadvantage but a disadvantage faced by everyone.
This is the world we now live in. We have to get used to it. Its a disadvantage but a disadvantage faced by everyone.
Why? The problem here is a little bit someone's right to remember (which is in no way undermined by the CJEU ruling) and a lot the tools that artificially help everyone to find information they never knew in the first place.
Its a disadvantage but a disadvantage faced by everyone.
We're all subject to police powers and the criminal justice system, too, but statistically speaking it seems some of us are more subject to them than others.
The press are equally free to report on all of us and under the same professional obligations to print retractions if they make mistakes, but it turns out that the retractions tend to be more prominent when it's a celebrity with the resources to bring a multi-million defamation lawsuit than when it was the local school teacher whose name was coincidentally the same as a convicted paedophile in last week's front page report where they included the teacher's photo by mistake.
If the information is already legally public, there is no case. If its illegally obtained then there already exist laws that covers it.
> ... statistically speaking it seems some of us are more subject to them than others.
But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection.
The original "right to be forgotten" case heard by the CJEU was essentially that information was already out there but was no longer fairly representative of the individual concerned and that this resulted in harm to that individual.
But google IS displaying info indiscriminately what RTBF doing is distort that perfection.
But Google is not the whole picture here.
This issue primarily affects people who have incorrect or misleading information about them floating around on the Internet. That situation may or may not have been their fault in any way, but it nevertheless makes them much more vulnerable in this sense.
The operation of a site like Google, if it perpetuates such information without ensuring its appropriateness first, then dramatically increases the resulting vulnerability, which the individual still may or may not actually deserve.
In other contexts, if you repeat a harmful lie about someone, you are as guilty of defamation as whoever told you that lie in the first place. I see no compelling argument that the same should not apply to online search tools, just because it's inconvenient for their business model of automating everything with minimal human interactions.
Regarding the article, I’m not familiar enough with the "Right to be Forgotten" directive to question the choosing of the examples opening the text, but to me it seems biased. These examples are arguably the kind of information which couldn’t be legally hidden because of public interest.
Keep in mind that the disadvantage is faced by everyone, but those who are ACTUALLY impacted are often devastated.
Saying "this is how the world is" is obviously also not valid...