SHOULD THE NET FORGET?
STRUGGLING TO ESCAPE THE NET
Our past sins remain a click away
A quick Google search of her name, one woman complained, brought up court cases that laid bare her medical information.
SO SUE THE DOCTORS WHO PUT IT UP ON THE WEB, NOT THE WEB SEARCH ENGINES.
Another said her daughter was being identified in online court documents as “a sex worker.”
TRUTH HURTS, DOESN'T IT? IT ONLY COST $150. FOR A LEGAL NAME-CHANGE, IDIOT!
A mother worried her son might read an account of the bitter custody battle fought for him.
SO YOUR SON ISN'T ENTITLED TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS PARENTS?!
A former inmate said his official pardon had been rendered all but meaningless.
WAAH! CRIMINALS FEEWLINGS ARE BEING HURT BY THE TRUTH BEING EXPOSED!
The
four were among 49 Canadians who lodged complaints with the federal
privacy commissioner between October 2013 and April 2016.
All of them
were angry that old court cases had suddenly started popping up in
Google searches of their names.
SO WHO CARES IF THEY'RE ANGRY, OR THAT THE COURT CASES WERE "OLD!"? THE TRUTH ONLY PROVES THEY WERE ONCE PRONE TO COMMIT CRIMES!
What’s
more, they said, the Romanian website that had posted the material —
thus making it discoverable by Google’s search engine — was demanding
money to take it down: It would cost them about $300 to be forgotten.
SO THEY COULD HAVE SPENT ONLY $300., BUT CHOSE TO SPEND THOUSANDS IN COURT, IN STEAD?! THERE IS NO LIMIT TO LIBERALS' STUPIDITY ENTITLEMENTS.
Welcome to the internet, circa 2017.
The
web’s hive mind has a long memory — and a mean streak OH NO: "THE WEB IS MEAN!" (HURT FEEWLINGS AGAIN) — which can be a
serious problem for anyone trying to move past an ugly divorce, a
criminal record, a bankruptcy or a foolish mistake. For years, officials
turned a blind eye to the problem, declaring the web a wild and unruly
frontier.
"FOR ANYONE TRYING TO MOVE PAST" IS A METAPHOR USED TO EVADE THE TRUTH THAT WHAT THEY ARE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS TO MAKE IT LEGAL TO COVER UP AND DESTROY EVIDENCE OF THEIR PAST CRIMES.
But now, two decades after the
advent of Google (the domain google.com was registered on Sept. 15,
1997), courts and regulators are increasingly asking the question:
Should the internet’s cache of damaging personal data be made to
disappear at some point? Or should it remain in place forever, burned
onto the online presence of the once guilty like some kind of digital
scarlet letter?
ONLY CRIMINALS ASK THAT KIND OF QUESTION AND EXPECT SYMPATHY FOR IT!
Those who argue for a
bestbefore date call it “the right to be forgotten” and say it should be
a fundamental tenet of the digital age.
i.e: "DESTROYING EVIDENCE OF OUR CRIMES SHOULD BE A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT!"
But
free speech advocates contend that enshrining the right in law will
diminish the revolutionary power of the web by creating “black holes”
where information can disappear.
“There
are two competing interests at the heart of almost everything that goes
on online,” says Montreal lawyer Allen Mendelsohn, an internet law
specialist. “In the simplest terms: It’s your right to your reputation
versus the other person’s right to freedom of expression.”
NO THERE AREN'T, YOU FLAMING CRIMINAL LEFTIST! YOU HAVE NO "RIGHT" TO AN UNTARNISHED REPUTATION, ONCE YOU TARNISH IT! CRIMINALS HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE REGARDED AS UPSTANDING CITIZENS, AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS NO OTHER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION WHICH INVOLVES LYING ABOUT OTHERS, EITHER! YOU JUST SAID ONE PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO LIE ABOUT HIS PAST, WHILE ANOTHER HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO SLANDER YOU ABOUT YOUR PAST, TOO!
Europe
and Argentina are among the jurisdictions that have already recognized
an individual’s right to be forgotten. The issue has played out for
years in Europe, where regulators are now wrestling with the thorny
question of how to enforce removal orders on the transnational,
shape-shifting web.
THEY HAVEN'T "RECOGNIZED AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN" - STATING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE REALLY ONLY CRIMINALIZING THE TRUTH IN SUCH A MANNER IS LIKE SAYING "WE RECOGNIZE YOUR INVISIBLE UNICORN'S EXISTENCE!"
In May 2014, the
European Union’s highest court ruled that Google must remove links to
damaging personal information deemed inadequate, irrelevant or
excessive.
SO IF SOMEONE HAS *SOME* EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER'S CRIMES, BUT YOU DEEM IT TO BE "INADEQUATE" IT HAS TO BE REMOVED? SIMILARLY, WHATEVER TRUE FACTS YOU DEEM TO BE "IRRELEVANT" ARE VERBOTEN AS WELL? AND FINALLY, ALL FACTS YOU YOU DEEM "EXCESSIVE" (LIKE THE 50 FAT TELEPHONE-BOOKS' WORTH OF LISTED EVIDENCE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S CRIMES) SHOULD BE EXPUNGED, TOO?!
The ruling — based on the
complaint of a Spanish man who wanted Google to remove links to a 1998
news story about his bankruptcy — said search engines were data
“controllers,” not just neutral conduits, and therefore had a
responsibility to cleanse unfair and damaging information.
"WAH! I MISMANAGED MY MONEY & WENT BANKRUPT! IT'S NOT FAIR THAT PEOPLE KNOW IT!"
In
its wake, Google received a deluge of requests for cache removals from
EU residents: more than 735,000 people filled out the company’s digital
application form. It has since delisted 1.1 million search results
inside the EU, according to the company’s public transparency report.
France’s
data protection agency, however, said that wasn’t good enough, and it
has ordered Google to censor those same links worldwide so that someone
conducting a search in Canada, for instance, couldn’t find information
unavailable in the EU. (Google Search uses different domains for
different countries: Canada is www.google.ca, Germany is www.google.de,
Spain is www.google.es, Australia is www.google.com.au, the U.S. is
www.google.com.)
OF COURSE THEY DID - THERE'S NO COUNTRY MORE LIBERTINE LIBERAL (CRIMINAL) OUT THERE THAN FRANCE - EXCEPT FOR MAYBE SAUDI ARABIA ITSELF...
Google has challenged the order to France’s Conseil d’Etat, which in July referred the issue to the EU’s top court.
The company says the case has profound implications for the free flow of digital information.
“If
French law applies globally, how long will it be until other countries –
perhaps less open and democratic – start demanding that their laws
regulating information likewise have global reach?” Google general
counsel Kent Walker wrote in a recent blog post.
Information
that is legal in one country, he said, is verboten in another:
“Thailand outlaws insults to its king; Brazil outlaws negative
campaigning in political elections; Turkey outlaws speeches that
denigrates Ataturk or the Turkish nation.”
WAAH! HURT FEEWINGS! SUBJECTIVE HYPOCRITICAL DOUBLE STANDARDS ARE ALWAYS ADVERSARIAL EXTORTION ATTEMPTS LEADING TO ENSLAVE EVERYONE!
He warned that the case, if upheld, could trigger “a global race to the bottom.”
Google
is already in an uncomfortable situation. By recognizing the right to
be forgotten, European courts have handed the multinational the
judge-like responsibility of weighing individual privacy rights against
the public’s right to know.
AGAIN, DEAR LEFTOPATHIC PRESSTITUTES: THEY HAVEN'T "RECOGNIZED A RIGHT" BUT PROMULGATE A LIE, AND THEY HAVEN'T "HANDED GOOGLE A RESPONSIBILITY" BUT HAVE EXTORTED GOOGLE BY OBLIGING THEM TO COMMIT SIMILAR CRIMES AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE, TOO!
Google officials have reviewed more than two million EU web addresses (URLs), and have decided
to remove 56.9 per cent of them.
GOOGLE IS ACTING UNDER DURESS TO COMMIT EVIDENCE-DESTROYING CRIMES.
The
company provides examples of the decisions it faces, but it does not
set out hard and fast rules for removals, nor does it explain how its
officials balance public versus private interests.
THERE IS NO SUCH "BALANCE" POSSIBLE: EITHER ONE GOES WITH UNIVERSALLY OBJECTIVE FACTS, OR ONE GOES ALONG WITH SUBJECTIVE LYING DOUBLE STANDARDS.
The
Global Commission on Internet Governance, an independent think-tank led
by former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt, decried that state of
affairs in a 2016 report: “Private companies — as opposed to courts and
legislatures — are only accountable to their shareholders; they should
not be the arbitrator on how to weigh fundamental rights and public
interests.”
AND YET CANADA, FOR INSTANCE, GIVES PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES LIKE ROGERS, BELL CANADA, AND QUEBEC'S VIDEOTRON, THE POWER TO INVADE THE HOMES OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TO KIDNAP THEM AND STEAL THEIR PROPERTY.
Courts around the world are now wrestling with issues raised by privacy on the internet, and Canada is no exception.
In
January, the Federal Court of Canada issued a judgment that excoriated
Sebastian Radulescu, the owner of the website Globe24h. com, as someone
who “has essentially made a business of exploiting the privacy of
individuals for profit.”
In 2012,
Globe24h.com downloaded thousands of decisions from the Canadian Legal
Information Institute (CanLII), a nonprofit organization that offers
access to decisions from Canadian courts and tribunals.
CanLII
shields its database from search engines in keeping with guidelines
published by the Canadian Judicial Council. (In 2005, the judicial
council said that while internet publishing enhances the open-court
principle, it also raises legitimate privacy and security concerns. Most
Canadian courts follow the council’s guidelines, but not all: The
Manitoba Court of Appeal, for instance, allows its judgments to be
indexed by Google. Once indexed, the material is infinitely more
accessible to the average web user.)
Globe24h.com
circumvented the Canadian convention by conducting a bulk download of
CanLII data and posting it to a company website. That made it
discoverable by Google’s search engine. As a result, people searching an
individual’s name — even if they were not looking for court records —
would quickly find the cached legal documents.
In response to a flood of complaints, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigated.
Radulescu
defended his website. He told the privacy commissioner that he was
engaged in a “journalistic enterprise” to broaden the availability of
Canadian legal decisions. His company didn’t create the documents, he
argued, but simply amplified their distribution: “If courts do not want
everyone to see (their decisions), why do they publish them online in
the first place?” he asked.
In June 2015,
the privacy commissioner issued a report that found that the website
generated most of its revenue by collecting fees to remove the unwanted
material. It recommended that Radulescu take down the Canadian content
from his website.
But the Romanian flatly
refused. So the case ended up in the Federal Court of Canada, which can
add legal force to the privacy commissioner’s findings.
In
his ruling earlier this year, Justice Richard Mosley concluded there
was nothing journalistic about Radulescu’s business: “The evidence
indicates that the respondent’s primary purpose is to incentivize
individuals to pay to have their personal information removed from the
website. There is no evidence that the respondent’s intention is to
inform the public on matters of public interest.”
The
judge ordered Radulescu to remove the documents, and awarded the
anonymous complainant $5,000 in damages. Globe24h.com is now
inoperative.
WHY SHOULD HE HAVE HAD TO REMOVE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS WHICH THEY THEM SELVES HAD MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE? LEGAL DECISIONS AREN'T COPYRIGHT PROTECTED, NOR ARE CRIMINAL RECORDS PRIVATE INFORMATION. THE "JUDGE" TRIED TO MAKE TELLING THE TRUTH ILLEGAL, AND PUNISHABLE BY FINE.
Some observers believe the
decision represents the first major step toward establishing a
court-sanctioned right to be forgotten in Canada.
NO, IT SIMPLY REPRESENTS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF COMMON JUDICIAL ATTEMPTS TO ILLEGALLY CRIMINALIZE TELLING THE TRUTH IN FAVOUR OF "HURT FEEWINGS!"
At the very least, says
Ottawa-based lawyer Colin Lachance, it highlights the need for a
national debate.
When you consider how
easy it is to destroy someone’s reputation, or cause them a lot of
financial and social harm, it’s kind of ridiculous. It’s not a just
situation right now.
“It’s really time for
a new national conversation about this,” said Lachance, CEO of the
legal publisher, Compass, and former president of CanLII. “Personally,
I’m of the view that case law should be open and free.”
BUT WAIT - AS FORMER PRESIDENT OF CanLII, WEREN'T YOU THE ONE SUING THE ROMANIAN FOR PUBLISHING THAT OPEN AND FREE CASE LAW, AS BEING "ILLEGAL!"?
Mendelsohn
used to believe in a no-holds-barred internet, but tempered that view
after years of trying to help people whose lives had been damaged by web
posts.
i.e: "I USED TO BELIEVE IN THE TRUTH, BUT HURT FEEWINGS CHANGED DESTROYED MY MIND!"
“I used to think, ‘If it’s
truthful information, why should it be removed or delisted?’” he says.
“But having seen so many circumstances where individuals have real
problems because of things on the internet, I’ve softened that stance a
bit: I don’t think there should be some unlimited right to be forgotten
where anything can be removed, but I do think something needs to be put
in place . ... There are a lot of competing interests that make it a
very complicated situation. But there are significant problems with some
of the stuff that’s easily discoverable through Google.”
IF YOU WANT TO FORCE GOOGLE TO AMEND OR APPEND IT'S (ALLEGEDLY NEUTRAL) SEARCHES, SIMPLY INSERT DISCLAIMERS ("THIS WAS PROVEN TO BE A LIE, AND IS STILL BEING RETAINED AS EVIDENCE TO BE USED IN COURT AGAINST IT'S AUTHOR") AND LINKS TO UPDATES PROVING SAME, RETARD!
Most
people would agree with the notion that a doctor who committed serious
malpractice, or someone who abused a child, should not have their
internet footprints easily erased. But how long should lesser crimes be
allowed to damage reputations online? What about allegations of
cheating, adultery, bad food, poor service?
ALLEGATIONS (OPINIONS) ARE PART OF FREE SPEECH, IF AND WHEN IDENTIFIED AS SAME; BUT PRESENTING ONE'S OPINION AS A FACT, IS A LIE (AKA CRIMINAL FRAUD AND SLANDER). DUH!
A
handful of U.S. websites — including The Dirty, Cheater Report and The
Ripoff Report — routinely publish allegations that can damage the
reputations of ordinary people and small businesses.
The websites post
mostly unverified accusations and complaints. AGAIN: IF THEY POST THEM AS OPINIONS, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL; WHILE POSTING THEM AS FACTS REMAINS ILLEGAL.
“They
hide behind certain American laws, and make it very hard to remove
content,” says Mendelsohn. “It’s unfortunate, but there’s very little
you can do except get active on the internet so that the item in
question gets pushed down in the Google rankings.”
Sometimes,
business owners and individuals turn to online reputation managers,
such as Reputation.ca, to help them bury an offensive post or a bad
review. Restaurants, hotels and retailers can be devastated by a single,
cranky customer who takes to social media.
Reputation.ca
has a number of strategies to repair an online reputation. First, it
appeals directly to the person or group that posted the material. If
it’s not possible to have the post removed, the firm employs what it
calls a “suppression” strategy: It develops 20 or 30 pieces of factual
content about a client and publishes them to the web. Optimized for
search engine algorithms, the material can displace negative posts on
Google’s search index.
SO THEY USE THE CRIMINALS' MIGHT-MAKES-RIGHT STRATEGY? BIG OF THEM (NOT)!
“When you consider
how easy it is to destroy someone’s reputation, or cause them a lot of
financial and social harm, it’s kind of ridiculous,” says Matt Earle,
founder and president of Reputation.ca.
“It’s not a just situation right
now.”
The Supreme Court of Canada recently entered the debate.
The
country’s highest court issued a judgment in late June that upheld a
worldwide removal order against Google. The ruling has broad
implications for content policing on the web: specifically, whether
search engine companies can be ordered to suppress search results in
other countries. (It’s the same issue that’s now before EU’s top court.)
The
Canadian case dealt with a commercial interest rather than an
individual’s privacy, but internet lawyers believe it will inform the
debate on the right to be forgotten. Explains Mendelsohn: “For a right
to be forgotten to meaningfully exist, you must have the ability to say
that Google must remove something.”
MORE TYPICAL STUPIDITY, TO SEPARATE COMMERCIAL (GANGS OF INDIVIDUALS') INTERESTS, FROM THOSE SAME INDIVIDUALS' PRIVATE PROPERTY INTERESTS.
The
case involved Equustek Solutions Inc., a Burnaby, B.C. based firm that
makes networking devices to improve industrial automation.
In
2012, Equustek won a court order that prevented a Vancouverbased
competitor, Datalink Technologies Gateways, from selling counterfeit
versions of its products. Datalink, however, closed its Vancouver office
and continued to operate as a virtual company through an ever-expanding
series of websites.
Equustek appealed to
Google for help in dealing with its scofflaw competitor. The
California-based company voluntarily removed 345 web addresses from its
list of search results on Google.ca to limit public access to Datalink.
But Datalink simply moved its content to new web pages, and continued to
sell products online — mostly to customers outside of Canada. Equustek
lawyers described its pursuit of Datalink as an unhappy game of
“Whac-A-Mole.”
As a result, the firm went
back to court, seeking a broader injunction that would order Google to
block all search results that linked to Datalink’s websites worldwide.
Google
lawyers said the order went much too far. They argued that a permanent,
worldwide injunction would set a dangerous precedent, and undermine
freedom of expression.
The lower court,
however, sided with Equustek, ruling that an injunction with
international force was the only practical way of protecting the
company’s economic interests. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld that
ruling, and Google appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard
the case in December.
STUPIDITY - IF THE DATALINK OWNERS WERE FRAUDULENTLY IMPERSONATING THE OWNERS OF EQUUSTEK AND COUNTERFEITING THEIR GOODS, FUCKING JAIL THEM!
PROBLEM SOLVED!
In its written
submissions, Google said the case, if upheld, opened the door to abuse
by nations eager to control information. Other countries, it warned,
could turn to similar international blocking orders to scrub the web of
ideas they consider offensive. “Should Russia grant orders prohibiting
Canadians from finding and reading websites that contain anti-Kremlin
content?” Google lawyers asked.
The case
attracted a host of interveners, including the Wikimedia Foundation,
Human Rights Watch and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
Wikimedia’s lawyers cautioned: “While this case relates to commercial
speech, the court should be mindful of the fact that expression that is
creative, educational, and informative will also come before courts
around the world.”
In a 7-2 ruling, the
Supreme Court upheld the worldwide deindexing order against Google. It’s
the first time that a nation’s highest court has upheld such a sweeping
removal order against the search engine giant.
OF COURSE THEY DID - THESE ARE THE SAME ASSCLOWNS WHO RULED THAT COPS STEALING YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT COURT ORDERS CHARGES OR ARRESTS IS PERFECTLY LEGAL, THUS IMPLYING THAT NO LAWYERS, COURTS, OR JUDGES NEED EXIST!
Writing
for the majority, Justice Rosalie Abella said that although Google was
not directly responsible for what happened to Equustek, it cannot be
considered a simple bystander since, as a key internet gatekeeper, it
“facilitated” that harm.
THAT'S SLANDER, WHICH READS SUBJECTIVE CRIMINAL INTENT (OR, IN "CIVIL LAW CRIME" TERMS, "MALICE") INTO A SIMPLE AND OBJECTIVELY-NEUTRAL INDEXING FUNCTION. IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS CLAIMING THE ROAD-PAVER KNOWINGLY "FACILITATED" THE GETAWAY DRIVER'S CRIMES AFTER HE HELPED HIS GANG ESCAPE A BANK ROBBERY SCENE, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE PAVED A ROAD FOR GENERAL USAGE!!
The judge noted
that Canadian courts routinely grant international injunctions to deal
with intellectual property and copyright infringements.
“The
problem in this case is occurring online and globally,” the court said.
“The internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global.”
aduffy@postmedia.com
No comments:
Post a Comment