[okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling

Mon May 19 23:06:47 UTC 2014

I too have been thinking/reading on this a lot:

> This is really quite a big deal as:
>
> a) it imposes potentially very substantial obligations on those who
> collect and curate "public" (open) data
> b) it could entitle people to have "public-interest" info taken down (e.g.
> what about info that you were a director of a fraudulent company)
>

 My position is that a fact is a fact and should remain so. If it's been
released into the public sphere it should stay there.  Secondly, putting
the liability onto intermediaries rather than content owner (person/entity
who made the decision to make the data public) is a dangerous precedent
related to the move to make ISPs accountable for piracy (3 strikes).

I wonder how much they'll charge to be able to search the unredacted
> version of the web...
>
I hadn't thought of that and it's a good point! ties in with the FCC net
neutrality issue - the public are entitled to a fast and unredacted
internet.

At it's most basic - the issue is with the content owner not the carriage
provider.  Perhaps OK should release a statement jointly with the internet
archive, EFF, and others?
kind regards
Anna

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 8:48 AM, stef <s at ctrlc.hu> wrote:

> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:23:27AM +0200, Rayna wrote:
> > 2014-05-20 0:17 GMT+02:00 stef <s at ctrlc.hu>:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:05:36AM +0200, Rayna wrote:
> > > > Following up on Rufus's questions, I have another one: whether the
> > > verdict
> > > > will include a provision making public interest outweigh personal
> desire.
> > >
> > > i don't think this matters at all. this is quite similar to the
> censorship
> > > of metadata linked from the piratebay.
> > >
> >
> > I am not sure I understand the subtleties (or lackthereof) you are trying
> > to convey: may you elaborate?
>
> both are search-engines, both provide links/metadata to 3rd party content.
> if
> the e-commerce directive was worth anything then there wouldn't be
> intermediary liability and thus no grounds for this.
>
> --
> otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>

-- 
Kind regards,
Anna Daniel, PhD.
Information Policy
Griffith University

t.: 0439 061 834 | a.daniel at griffith.edu.au
I ascribe to the email charter: http://emailcharter.org
Disclaimer*:* this information is provided for general guidance only and
does not constitute legal advice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140520/e04dcb00/attachment-0002.html>