RSS
'Privacy' The Latest Tool Being Used For Censorship
from the right-to-be-forgotten dept
In the last few months, we've written a few times about the EU's bizzare fascination with a "right to be forgotten," which is a bizarre attempt to create laws that would let individuals demand that anything they don't like about themselves be deleted from the internet. The argument supporting this is always that it's a form of a "privacy" right, but that's not true. A right to privacy is about keeping your private info private. This "right to be forgotten" is usually about trying to block public info. However, the EU is still pushing forward with this idea, apparently not realizing how disastrous it would actually be in practice. Supporters have mocked concerns about free speech, claiming that we Americans "fetishize" free speech.
But this goes beyond just a basic free speech claim or a privacy claim. This is really about censorship. Berin Szoka points us to a great analysis by Peter Fleischer about how a "right to be forgotten" is really about censorship. Fleischer is Chief Privacy Counsel for Google, but wrote this on his personal blog, rather than as an official Google position.
But this goes beyond just a basic free speech claim or a privacy claim. This is really about censorship. Berin Szoka points us to a great analysis by Peter Fleischer about how a "right to be forgotten" is really about censorship. Fleischer is Chief Privacy Counsel for Google, but wrote this on his personal blog, rather than as an official Google position.
More and more, privacy is being used to justify censorship. In a sense, privacy depends on keeping some things private, in other words, hidden, restricted, or deleted. And in a world where ever more content is coming online, and where ever more content is find-able and share-able, it's also natural that the privacy counter-movement is gathering strength. Privacy is the new black in censorship fashions. It used to be that people would invoke libel or defamation to justify censorship about things that hurt their reputations. But invoking libel or defamation requires that the speech not be true. Privacy is far more elastic, because privacy claims can be made on speech that is true.The whole thing is a good read. He breaks down the component issues, to get around the attempts by some to conflate very different issues to support a right to be forgotten.
Privacy as a justification for censorship now crops up in several different, but related, debates: le droit a l'oubli, the idea that content (especially user-generated content on social networking services) should auto-expire, the idea that data collection by companies should not be retained for longer than necessary, the idea that computers should be programmed to "forget" just like the human brain. All these are movements to censor content in the name of privacy. If there weren't serious issues on both sides of the debate, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
I have an app...
Top 5 Reasons Why Mobile Analytics Is Important
Developer Census: Be Counted. It takes less than two minutes.
I have an idea...
Founders, Funders, Farmers, Fools, And Family
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Who Are App Developers?
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Invraisemblable!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
what about Pederasses
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: what about Pederasses
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Are you sure? Let's imagine a hypothetical world where legislation has been passed that installs millions of cameras, recording everything that ever happens in a public area. All locations that are open to the public are required to install these cameras (perhaps they're reimbursed for the costs). Microphones are everywhere public, too.
Would such legislation not be a gross violation of privacy? Even though the only things that would be recorded are "public"?
As technology continues to makes surveillance devices cheaper, and recording quality better, and data storage cheaper...this type of issue will become more common. The courts have relied on the faulty premise that there is no right to privacy for things done "in public". Technology is on a steady march to making constant surveillance of everything done "in public" an economically viable idea. When it happens, we'll see just how faulty that premise is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you want those new logs to be forgotten you will just have to invoke your right to be forgotten again. Granted, that will create a new set of logs with the same information plus the new request to be forgotten.
Your only hope is to create an infinite loop with requests to be forgotten and hope they run out of disk space.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You know a European who'd really like to be forgotten?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc?
The EU isn't promoting privacy, they're merely attempting to erase history. They won't succeed because of the nature of the 'Net, but they may establish some dangerous precedents and justifications in the process of trying.
It would be tempting to dismiss this as mere stupidity, if it wasn't also dangerous.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What about Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc?
Too true!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That legislation is horrible to the latter, but to the former isn't even worth frowning at.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hell, what if someone out there just has a good memory, and remembers what I did? They'll have to be lobotomized, of course. I have a right to make them forget.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: what about Pederasses
> memorial to their victims.
Perhaps they could get a court order requiring the victims themselves to forget the incident and who it was that molested them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Forget This. . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Availibility
What platform do I need to run this application?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Availibility
So . . . any platform that can handle the interface.
Oh, wait, your system would have to run faster than their system's storage grows, which might actually be a problem.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Can you elaborate?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'm still trying to digest the individuals have no expectation of privacy in public places or when sending unencrypted emails mantra.
If the above mentioned right to be forgotten becomes a right will will we ever find Osama Bin Laden?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"C:\Windows\system32"? Sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't quite place it... *BSOD*
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Forget This. . .
Thanks for sharing that!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Free speech or censorship?
What's the difference between a free speech issue and a censorship issue? Isn't censorship by definition the abridgment of freedom of speech?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment