It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking EU passes new law "The right to be forgotten".

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
A top EU court has ruled Google must amend some search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten".

The European Union Court of Justice said links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.

www.bbc.co.uk...

To me this is great news It will mean that on request we can ask Google/Facebook to remove any links or pages which are out of date.
It is just breaking news at the moment and I await the full details.
Google say this is censorship but is it? have we the right to change what is online about us If it is out of date etc seeing it is about ourselves I say yes we should.
I think it will help people in the future when they look back at their online life and cringe maybe because they have thought a different way when younger and are embarrassed about it so now they can change it.
I think this is a good step towards personally controlling what is online about you.
Thoughts?




posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Hah, as if Google has any grounds to claim censorship. They censor the search results of which they desire, all the while feeding our information to third parties...

I think this is an important development, and i hope it is picked up by other states and territories.

Thanks for posting!



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

From a personal standpoint I see this as great. It will also help against so-called "revenge" sites and posts.

What I fear is it's abuse should it be used to deny availability of news or history for people we need to know about already in the public eye; companies, politicians et c.

Given a choice between the two opposing sides I would always go for privacy.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

I think they know they will have to get a new division up and running soon to deal with all the requests of taking stuff down.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Seiko

Yeah it could be a double edged sword I suppose but I agree with you I would pick the right to be forgotten any day of the week.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Seiko

This completely, it works both ways, and knowing Europe it's more for the last then the first. Make no mistake Europe is equally evil when it comes to suppressing and taking away basic rights.

And besides, this is all a charade anyway. If Google moves our meta data to another location no one would even know it. For reasons unknown.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I believe this is all in the name of "bad press". If a corporation has a leak about some kind of information, they can cry "old news", "irrelevant information" or any other ambiguous terms to control the flow of popular opinion. If we're dumb enough to publicly embarrass or incriminate ourselves, we deserve the scrutiny, especially in this information age we live in.

Regardless if we created a whole web page dedicated to a cult, that we've now since moved on from, we should be able to articulate our new view. By our fruits we are judged, correct? Is it not eye opening to see the state of human society, as all the violent, pathetic, and incoherent messages from social media come spurring out of our collective mouths?

At this point, any redaction of information, would only hurt those of us looking for those glints and shimmers of truth, hidden amongst the garbage heap we call communication (more like regurgitation).



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Aedaeum

I agree with you on this concerning what I think of as commercial, political etc news with the exception of the ordinary people whose every misdemeaneur e.g. drunk and disorderly at 19 etc which could prejudice a 'reformed character's job, prospects and standing in the community, where I do think the ordinary individual has the right to close down information about their personal lives. I also sympathize with the female celebrity who gets snapped getting out of a taxi and displaying her underwear, I think how I would feel were it my wife.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

Would you PLEASE quit posting OP's that I agree so strongly with?

It's distracting, jangling and otherwise messing with my typical stance with regard to you.

[joke]

I agree with you on this topic . . . you may also have seen my reply on the employee thread.

I just don't believe that it will achieve much for the "nearish-long-term."

The oligarchy will do whatever it wants to do one way or another. And our reform efforts will mostly be as effective p*ssing on a forest fire at close range.

I would prefer to be wrong.

.

edit on 13/5/2014 by BO XIAN because: typos



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Being drunk and disorderly is our own fault... No one held the bottle to our lips, with a gun to our head and said "Drink!". If we do it publicly, we're also at fault and we reap the consequences. Stupidity does not hold us above reproach.

Owning up to what we've done and who we are, is a big part of growth... not sweeping things under the rug like our childish, benevolent Big Brother...

As far as people snapping photos of celebrities. This is not illegal, yet I understand the detrimental nature of the content. This, I believe is an entirely different issue that should be relegated to an ethics consensus. Sadly, we don't live in a society where ethics plays a valid role, other then to protect the minority. We live in a dog eat dog world. If you want protection from people, stay away from them


I don't mean to come off as rude, I'm simply stating how it is...
edit on 13-5-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2014 by Aedaeum because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Lol ok



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
More here.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Hmmm... I agree with Aedaeum... and Google... this screams of censorship and will likely lead to abuse and media "crafting", regardless of any good intentions.

The great thing about the internet is that it is a history, and legislating the ability to alter or censor "history" will lead to a revisionist view of the individual all the way up to the corporation and government.

Knowing that you can't "erase" mistakes enforces the concept of considering your actions before you do them. If I let myself be captured on camera being a fool it is my own fault, and we should all be open, honest and try to own our actions.

After all, there are already laws in place in most countries that protect against slander and obscenity, no need to hide the past.

I will always pick transparency against people and corporations choosing for me what I am allowed to know.

Cheers

edit on 13-5-2014 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Since I am honest, it is irrelevant.I NEVER thought anything I put out was private.How ever it would be a gold mine to some who retained the data now wouldn't it?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

I think it's an excellent idea. I wish the US would do the same, and I don't know why Google has a problem with it. Oh, because they're in bed with the NSA and every other governmental "intelligence" agency.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:13 PM
link   
For a site whose members dedicate a lot of time to digging up facts, or the truth of a given situation, it's funny that the majority of posts are for this legislation that will effectively make it easy for a person/organisation to doctor available information.

A scenario that may help put this in perspective is this bill will pave the way for a regular post on ATS about some company or person doing bad things, would now be subject to "removal" if the person/organisation says said information is now "irrelevant".

The whole concept of the "right to be forgotten" in a public domain is erroneous... do it in private if you don't want it public... and if made public, don't make it easy to cover up. Once I've seen something, I don't easily forget it, and the ability to remove evidence will just make it difficult to "prove" a given scenario, and lead to plausible deniability.

Or do we want a sanitised internet?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

Google is a search engine... the very idea of making things difficult to search for goes against the whole idea of free information. Of course they don't want this.

Why should Google have to be the maid of other peoples information?... and be a tool for removing the past? The thing that made Google great to begin with are search algorithms that made it easy to "find" stuff.

Sheesh...



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

It's so beyond ironic that it's scary.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: brazenalderpadrescorpio

I agree... ;-j

People want the individual right to "cover their public past", but where business is concerned want everything transparent.

Since businesses are comprised of people, the obvious conflict and double standard is very apparent.

With these types of restrictions being applied to search engines, i see freely available information on the internet heading out the door... which to me is very bad.

Cheers



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere

That sounds like a scary world, to be honest. If I see that all of this internet mumbo jumbo goes down in some serious way, without any real protest that leads to change, I think that I can safely say that I've lost my faith in humanity.







 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join