EU up to the same old tricks

First reported on a day or so ago we can already see the implications of the EU's ruling against Google for people to be 'forgotten'

The EU claim it is a victory for the common persons privacy. Soon enough it will be the EU taking down article speaking out against the EU and so on and so forth end of freedom etc.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27423527

https://teksyndicate.com/forum/inboxexe/google-slapped-again-eu/178048

It's not quite as it seems. This is not about censoring unsavoury blog posts. This is a quesiton about how society handles data that is not required in the public sphere.

and who deems what is 'not required'?

If you complete a transaction, you have the financial institution and yourself involved in the transaction. Both parties can view that transaction. If that institution publishes that transaction, that's kind of unwarranted in most situations. Granted, there are times when we need transparency. e.g political contributions.

Corporations -or other entities- should not decide how to use my personal information; on my behalf, without my consent. This is a basic freedom, this the protection of consumers. Nobody needs to know if I have had a house repossessed. We don't need to allow businesses to abuse this information so that they might profit.

In Europe, personal information is classified as a precious good. It's protected, heavily. In the US or the UK, we allow various entities to farm information from us and sell it. Whenever an entity assures you that your personal information will not be sold, in law, that means that they won't give out your national insurance number. However, everything else is fair game. Imagine having information about yourself, on the internet, that you're not made aware of.

Why aren't we doing more to protect this information? Why do we allow people to profit from its misuse. This ruling enforces the protection of that kind of data. It's not applicable to a Facebook status that includes your name. I think that the cries of censorship is a misunderstanding of this ruling. Anyway, check out the thread I linked. It does a better job of explaining.

I know I didn't answer your question directly. But it is the wrong question to ask. It's not "who deems information...". It's actually: "how the fuck did that get there in the first place??"

Did you see the article I posted?

My issue is not about peoples personal information is about literally controlling the media. So, in the article, a doctor who had bad reviews wants them removed. A convicted pedophile wants information about his crime removed. A POLITICIAN wants news about how he behaved in office removed so that he can renew his campaign.

Now my point was where does this stop, people in politics can now essentially have things about them removed because they don't like it?

I do believe that our personal information should be protected but how far does this go? 

No, the ruling is not applicable to that kind of information about politicians. It's not a takedown of "any and all" information. It's -for example- your previously listed home addresses.

There is a danger that this is not black and white. The reason this was initiated was because details of a Spanish mans repossessed home were published somewhere. That's his personal life. A violation of his privacy.

The BBC article lists things, take down notices, which aren't really related to this court case and the kind of information . I'd actually deem them a little bit irrelevant and sensationalist. With the exception of the sex offender. Providing the sex offender is known to the police, there's no real reason to shame that person and have him attacked by others.

I'll be clear about it. If a politician commits a crime, that is a very public affair. That information belong in the public sphere, and the media are free to report on it. You can't issue takedown notices of that sort of thing.

On the other hand, these privacy laws have worked in places like Switzerland, not a full-member EU country. So this calamity could be for nothing. Google hasn't adhered to rules which were already in place. While it is not Google's fault, necessarily, they do need to help enforce this/promote citizen rights.

It's important that we get the facts, and I am not sure much of the media is getting it correct. I watched a video on TYT earlier. One of those hosts totally misunderstood claiming, "what if someone wants to take down a derogatory name-calling blog?". It's a misconception of what is being questioned here.

The guy who won the court case had no interest in his address being published (it was where he used to live anyway). He wanted it take down because it reflected badly on his financial status.

This judgment will just lead to things in the article.

If it doesn't then great.... but it will be abused.

Switzerland is great. Its also not in the EU.

I just used "previous addresses" as a personal example. Something that you could relate to.

Yes, he is embarrassed by his financial situation, but there's a very obvious principle in conjunction. The right to privacy is a major concern. So while we can all laugh at him for being a failure, or whatever it is people will do, we need to recognise that we shouldn't know that about him. It's between him and the bank.

I can't see this encroaching on a free media. This is simply the protection of personal details. Something which is taken much more seriously on the continent. I don't think it will lead to anything in relation to the BBC article, to be honest. I think that people have jumped on this because net neutrality has been up in the air recently, and so they've taken this to mean censorship.

I believe in freedom of information, but we need to understand when we have over-stepped the bounds of reason.

And Switzerland has adopted provisions from the EU in order to participate in the EU market. Which is why I said not a full-member. But yes, you are right, they are not a "member state".

:) we shall see where it all leads I suppose.

 

Liquid Thorium Reactors FTW...

Don't get me wrong. The media might have the right intentions, but I just don't think they've shown the complete and very specific points covering this.

 

And the UK needs to do something about that. Thorium, I mean. We're so far behind, but we don't have any civic nuclear engineering. So that means we've gotta pay someone else to do it. Regardless, we need it, truly.