EU judges to tackle idiotic “right to be forgotten” again

Source: US News & World Report

“In May 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) ruled that people could ask search engines, such as Google and Microsoft’s Bing, to remove inadequate or irrelevant information from web results appearing under searches for people’s names — dubbed the -right to be forgotten.’ Google has since received over 720,000 removal requests and accepted about 43 percent of them, according to its transparency report. Four individuals who had asked Google to remove links to webpages about them appealed to the French data protection authority after the search engine company refused their request. The French privacy regulator, the CNIL, agreed with Google’s decision, prompting the individuals to take their case to the French Conseil d’Etat, France’s supreme administrative court, which referred it to the Luxembourg-based ECJ.” (05/16/17)

https://www.usnews.com/news/technology/articles/2017-05-16/eu-judges-to-tackle-right-to-be-forgotten-again

  • dL

    debatable…not idiotic… i assure I could make an argument for it that would not be idiotic

    • I guess I’d be interested in seeing an argument for it that is not idiotic.

      N.B. Any argument that treats privacy as such as a “right” is by definition idiotic.

      • dL

        As a preliminary, do you think the credit bureau 7 year rule is idiotic?

        Any argument that treats privacy as such as a “right” is by definition idiotic.

        In everything, I start w/ a presumption of liberty, not rights.

        • A question is not an argument, but yes, I think any legal limit on the retention/reportage of accurate information is idiotic.

          • dL

            yeah, well it wasn’t an argument..it was preliminary question in attempt to obviate any need for an argument…of course, if you had answered in the affirmative. As it stands, your position RE: the credit bureau reporting would make the argument easier, given that “accurate information” can be an evanescent concept for records that no longer exist(say from 20 years ago), particularly given the burden of dispute falls on the consumer.

          • dL

            NOTE: same principle/reasoning as having a statute of limitations on (most) crimes. I assume you are not against that.

            Of course, keep in mind the standard here is idiotic vs debatable

          • I would put those same principles in the same general family, but principle and application are two different things.

            One application is a standard for limiting state power to punish.

            The other application is a standard for using state power to forbid or limit private conveyance of accurate information, also known as a standard for censorship.

          • dL

            One application is a standard for limiting state power to punish.

            That’s one of the reasons for statute of limitations. The other is
            “By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.”

            using state power to forbid or limit private conveyance of accurate information, also known as a standard for censorship.

            A credit bureau is profit business that collects credit history of individuals and sells it to credit issuers that by and large operate by state banking monopolies. The issue here is not censorship. Instead, it would be prior restraint on trade between credit bureau and credit issuer. Given that the credit issuers themselves operate on a prior restraint on trade w/ regards to competition, I will take my 7-year rule prior restraint on trade between credit bureau and credit issuer.

            NOTE: Given that credit scoring models already heavily discount negative items > 5 years, the seven year rule would effectively be de facto in place even w/o the explicit prohibition. In other words, your credit history 20 years ago has little or no commercial value today.

            REMINDER: The threshold standard here is not compelling or debatable. It is “idiotic.”