Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Says EU 'Right To Be Forgotten' Would Harm Privacy

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the want-to-subscribe-to-your-newsletter dept.

EU 277

judgecorp writes "The European Commission has proposed a "right to be forgotten" online, which would allow users to remove personal data they had shared. The idea has had a lot of criticism, and now Facebook claims it would actually harm privacy. Facebook says the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites — but privacy advocates say Facebook has misunderstood what the proposal is all about."

cancel ×

277 comments

Misunderstood? (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206211)

privacy advocates say Facebook has misunderstood what the proposal is all about."

Misunderstood, my ass. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest.

Re:Misunderstood? (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206267)

Misunderstood, my ass. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest.

Yeah, I'd have to say this is a willful 'misunderstanding'.

Facebook's commodity is your data. That's how they make money. They don't want to be told that they would be required to delete your data upon request.

Any time you see Facebook saying "Privacy laws would harm privacy", the real thing they're saying is "but that would cut into profits".

Re:Misunderstood? (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206299)

"'Facebook misunderstood" is "Facebook obfuscated".

Re:Misunderstood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206329)

You're about to become Mark Zuckerberg's bitch. Suck it down!

Re:Misunderstood? (4, Interesting)

Artraze (600366) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206367)

No, no, you misunderstand. Remember that adage "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"? Well, all Facebook has is privacy intrusion so of course the only way to enhance privacy is to intrude on it. Makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Re:Misunderstood? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206475)

Sadly, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

From FB's perspective, this would harm your privacy, because FB will have to find even more creative and treacherous ways to invade user privacy to make up for the fact that users could, at any time, choose to have said data removed. I could easily imagine them creating multiple shell corporations that really "store" your data, and then when you ask to have your data removed they simply say "sorry, we don't store your data, one or more of our many affiliate corporations store and manage user data .. you'll have to submit your requests to them..."

Re:Misunderstood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207193)

This happens with telemarketers all the time. You do business with one company. They send your info to "related partners", who now have a legal reason to start ringing your phone. Of course, when you ask to be removed from the list, it does little to no good, since the secondary "partners" have allowed another ring of shells to sell stuff.

Same with barely legal UCE (not true spam as it is OK under the CAN-SPAM act).

The EU needs to set a policy where if the user sets the data gone, it is gone from FB and any shells, or else.

Re:Misunderstood? (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206387)

An RTBF would harm Facebook's private use of the data they've gathered from their products.

Re:Misunderstood? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206401)

Everyone who gets into facebook agrees to sharing the data. It's either that or don't participate in facebook.

That said, what facebook is complaining is about the way the law is being drafted. The idea is good, but the way it's written is very bad, it could make any company liable if you posted a photo, a friend shared said photo, you asked to be forgotten and the shared photo was somewhere else.

Re:Misunderstood? (3, Informative)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206513)

No, it would not.

Facebook would be responsible for what is posted on servers. Only. If someone copied the data to MySpace, that is a problem for MySpace, not Facebook.

I think you would quite well working for Facebook.

Re:Misunderstood? (3, Interesting)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206431)

Isn't that the exact opposite of Hanlon's Razor?

Better said, and copied right from my old .signature archive:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
  depends on his not understanding it"
                                  -- U. Sinclair

Re:Misunderstood? (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207847)

Isn't that the exact opposite of Hanlon's Razor?

Pretty much. When someone trots out Hanlon's razor, see if mcgrew's razor fits the circumstance. If not, Hanlon applies. If so, someone's probably scamming someone. If there's an error that harms someone but doesn't help the person that made the error, than Hanlon is right. Too often it excuses malicious behavior -- always look at motives. "Oops, sorry, I made an error. Please don't notice that I benefitted at your expense."

Re:Misunderstood? (1)

jakimfett (2629943) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206523)

If by "privacy issues" they're meaning "we stop making money from violating yours"...

Re:Misunderstood? (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206565)

They don't make money from violating mine. Then again, I'm not on facebook because I don't want them to violate my privacy. Damndest thing.

Re:Misunderstood? (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206823)

They don't make money from violating mine. Then again, I'm not on facebook because I don't want them to violate my privacy. Damndest thing.

Other people can post pictures of you and "tag" you in them, regardless of whether or not you're actually a member of Facebook.

The only way to know for certain that Facebook isn't violating your privacy would be to have access to every single media item on their servers, and manually go through them all to make sure no one else has posted your private information there.

Or, you know, someone could pass a law...

Re:Misunderstood? (-1)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207251)

What do I care if someone posts a picture of me on facebook?

Re:Misunderstood? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207377)

making a few assumtions here

lets say you go to a party and then get drugged out of your mind (spiked drink) they then strip you down shave you and put you in a wig makeup and teddy (with any needed padding). As the party winds down they then start posting pictures AND TAGGING THEM hinting that you maybe wanted to be dressed/act like that.

do you think the Important People in your life would approve?? the ones you haven't met yet??

Re:Misunderstood? (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207607)

I don't go to places where that would happen.

Re:Misunderstood? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207487)

The only way to know for certain that Facebook isn't violating your privacy would be to have access to every single media item on their servers, and manually go through them all to make sure no one else has posted your private information there. Or, you know, someone could pass a law...

And the only way to know that they aren't (or are) violating the law is to ... go through every single media item on their servers to make sure that no one else has posted your private information. Simply saying "someone could pass a law" isn't the solution to this kind of problem. Passing a law doesn't mean you "know for certain" anything.

Re:Misunderstood? (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206531)

"Misunderstood, my ass. Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest."

Imagine Facebook receives an order to remove information concerning a particular incident. How does Facebook remove this information without going through what all its users have shared or otherwise posted to their accounts?

Re:Misunderstood? (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207147)

And the information the other users published isn't private - until they request FB removes it, after which it should be removed. And after that it's gone - no need to go looking through it again.

Re:Misunderstood? (2)

Teun (17872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207711)

The principle of EU privacy law is quite simple, even Facebook can understand it :)

Facebook is responsible for what it does with your data, not what their users do with it.
So when Facebook shares your data they have the responsibility to on request "unshare".

Re:Misunderstood? (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206721)

If they said "Facebook is lying through their teeth," people would perceive that as negative and would use that as an excuse to ignore what they're saying.

How many times have you been watching an election, and you think there's a clear right and wrong choice (or one clear right choice and several wrong choices), and voters complain that the race had "too much mudslinging."

Sometimes I want to shake such people by the collar and say "IT'S NOT 'NEGATIVE' IF IT'S TRUE, YOU MORON!... OKAY WELL MAYBE IT TECHNICALLY IS, BUT DO YOU GET MY POINT? Alright I'll stop yelling and let you go... wait, why are you running? I was explaining why candidate X is actually bad!"

Anyway, suggesting that it was an innocent misunderstanding and not lying like a senator may simply be PR.

Ok... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206239)

Sort of like how setting "Do Not Track" by default is supposed to harm people? Poor advertisers. They might have to get real jobs instead of being online stalkers.

Re:Ok... (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207719)

DNT is a completely different issue - there's nothing saying the corporate stalkers have to pay any attention to your DNT setting, it's simply a request that they don't do so. As such if DNT is off by default then having it on means "I care about this issue enough to ask you politely not to track me", whereas a with default-on all it mean is "I'm using browser X", and how exactly does that help anyone?

In other news... (5, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206269)

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery

They learned from the NSA (0)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206825)

"It Would Violate Your Privacy to Say if We Spied on You" - the NSA

Re:In other news... (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207077)

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery

As we approach the 30th anniversary I propose we add these to the list:

Sharing is Stealing
Privacy is Terrorism

Re:In other news... (2)

Time_Ngler (564671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207483)

Considering that this bill requires the implementation one of the core ideas in the book, ie. the purposeful destruction and reshaping of information, it is quite rich that you would use it to try and rally support for the bill.

So by the same logic... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206285)

The "right not to be punched in the face" would harm health?

Re:So by the same logic... (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206883)

The "right not to be punched in the face" would harm health?

As they say,
"Fighting for peace" is roughly equivalent to "Screwing for virginity"

Re:So by the same logic... (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207049)

And "they" are idiots who know neither history, nor the reality of conflict.

All of history have proven there two basic routes to peace in the face of aggression:
1) When the invaders come, roll over and become their slaves.
2) When the invaders come, kill them all.

You only get to pick one.

Re:So by the same logic... (2, Interesting)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207219)

1) When the invaders come, roll over and become their slaves.
2) When the invaders come, kill them all.

I am almost certain that the saying refers to wars that are motivated as pre-emptive strikes.
Fighting back against invaders is more of a "fighting for freedom" than a "fighting for peace"

Okay, I'll say it (-1, Redundant)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206341)

This whole "right to be forgotten" thing is fucking absurd.

Re:Okay, I'll say it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206435)

And which ad firm do you work for again?

Re:Okay, I'll say it (-1)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206493)

I don't like ridiculous laws, so I must work for an ad firm. You're a brilliant one, aren't you?

Re:Okay, I'll say it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206541)

"I don't like ridiculous laws, " but you are perfectly fine with ridiculous abuses

Re:Okay, I'll say it (-1, Flamebait)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206587)

How is it "abuse?" People sign up for it knowing they're posting a whole bunch of shit out on the internet where everyone can see everything. That's how the internet works. If you don't want something on the internet, don't put it on the internet. If you put something on the internet that you don't want on the internet, well, looks like you fucked up. How is that anyone else's problem?

Re:Okay, I'll say it (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207661)

Why do you assume this law is directed only to Facebook or other free web services?

Problem solved (5, Insightful)

golden age villain (1607173) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206437)

Facebook says the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites

Maybe they can start by not copying user data to other sites.

Re:Problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206499)

But then how else can they sell their product?

Re:Problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206563)

They could start charging people for the use of facebook.
With several hundred milion users that has got to be a pretty amount of £/$/€.

Re:Problem solved (1)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206507)

Maybe users could start by not agreeing to have their data copied to other sites.

Re:Problem solved (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206567)

given the choice/knowledge they probably would. however it is kinda foolish to think anything you put online is "private"

Re:Problem solved (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206613)

however it is kinda foolish to think anything you put online is "private"

Exactly. [google.com]

Re:Problem solved (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206881)

And completely lock users into Google sites so they can never transport their information to Facebook, etc. There has been a huge outcry about social sites not allowing data to be copied and now you are proposing that exact thing. Under your rules one could not copy one's own data from Gmail to Facebook even if one wanted to.

Re:Problem solved (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207093)

You do realize you can download an XML
  File or two from Google with all your data, right?

Re:Problem solved (0)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207241)

That is my point. Are you now not copying data from Google to your site? Is that not "copying data to other sites"? Is that not what the OP has an issue with? Would that act of copying now have to be logged to comply with the data removal law? Could someone now look at that log and find where the data went?

Re:Problem solved (2)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207367)

That is my point. Are you now not copying data from Google to your site? Is that not "copying data to other sites"?

It is YOU copying YOUR data to other sites.

Re:Problem solved (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207229)

I think you've missed my point. You're agreeing to have these things copied to other sites just by signing up and putting them on the internet.

Re:Problem solved (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207277)

I should have posted as a response to the parent and not your post

Re:Problem solved (0)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207315)

I see; it makes much more sense as a response to that.

Re:Problem solved (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206813)

One of the biggest gripes about social media sites is the difficulty in moving from provider to provider. Say someone wanted to move from Gmail to Facebook. This would require copying contacts from Gmail to Facebook.

So you copy your Gmail contacts to your Facebook account. You then want to remove those contacts you put into your Gmail account. Does Gmail now have to pass on that removal request to Facebook because they passed on the contact? if they don't then the contact is not completely deleted from the internet as it still exixts on another provider's system. If they do, then they have to keep a record of where all those contacts were exported to. Now it is possible to link a user's Gmail account to their Facebook account through the logging feature. This is what Google is talking about.

To delete records that have been copied one must retain a log to all those places where the data has been copied. This log can then be used to trace a person's activity and therefore a privacy concern.

Re:Problem solved (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207109)

Google lets you download XML of all your crap. It's not hard to leave Google because of Google.

Try to d/l your posts from Facebook

Re:Problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207273)

Google lets you download XML of all your crap. It's not hard to leave Google because of Google.

Try to d/l your posts from Facebook

What is so hard about this?
http://www.facebook.com/help/131112897028467/

Re:Problem solved (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207299)

So you copy your Gmail contacts to your Facebook account. You then want to remove those contacts you put into your Gmail account. Does Gmail now have to pass on that removal request to Facebook because they passed on the contact?

Gmail didn't pass on the contacts, YOU did.

if they don't then the contact is not completely deleted from the internet as it still exixts on another provider's system.

Telling Facebook or gmail to actually delete information doesn't mean you're telling them to delete it from anyplace it might be on the Internet. It's telling them to delete it from gmail or facebook, or wherever they sent it.

This is not a complicated problem. And yet, Google/Gmail thinks it is. My idiot ISP has just handed all of their user's personal information over to Google by moving their email services to gmail. Gmail immediately sent out an email telling people they shouldn't delete their email when done with it, they should "archive" it. (Of coirse, they can't index and sort and make money from selling private data if you've deleted it.) And, in fact, now my mobile email clients actually DON'T delete email when I tell them to. A week ago, deleting an email meant it went away. Today, deleting an email after reading it leaves that email not only on the system but marks it as UNREAD. Fascinating.

To delete records that have been copied one must retain a log to all those places where the data has been copied.

Yes, I will keep a mental log of where I sent the contact data I downloaded from gmail to.

This log can then be used to trace a person's activity and therefore a privacy concern.

Me knowing where I copied my own data is not a privacy concern. But thanks for trying to whitewash facebook.

Re:Problem solved (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206915)

Think of it this way. You send an email, it gets forwarded, then forwarded again, then posted on a forum, then tweeted.

You then tell the person you sent the email to to delete it and every copy that may have been made of it.

Is that reasonable? How could you do that and who gives you the right, especially when there are whole conversations tangentially related to that email that would become orphaned.

The same happens on Facebook. People post an image, it gets reposted elsewhere, comments are added to the reposted info. If the original poster wants it removed what happens to everyone else? Are their conversations about the image to be removed as well or do they just lose their subject matter or???

beer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206477)

The right to be forgotten comes in 40 ounces in several varieties.

Privacy has nothing to do with it (5, Insightful)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206485)

To grant one person the right to be forgotten is to deprive another of the right to remember. The sharing of information once legitimately published cannot become illegitimate just because the person involved doesn't want it to be known. The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206525)

This. A "right to be forgotten" implies silencing those who do not want a person's actions forgotten, and this must not be allowed.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (5, Informative)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206681)

We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here.
We are talking about being tracked and datamined, for profit.

This is not a form of censorship.

Facebooks right to know everything about and and make money off it does not carry more weight than my right to be left alone and not be tracked and not be datamined.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

LordArgon (1683588) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207135)

I'm not sure why you're phrasing this in terms of rights. Facebook doesn't have a "right" to track you, but it is part of their business model and user agreement. You agree to be tracked when you use their service. By extension, you don't have a "right" not to be tracked.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207629)

This. Very much this.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207843)

We're not talking about criminal records or warcrimes here.
We are talking about being tracked and datamined, for profit.

How do you legally distinguish between them?

Facebooks right to know everything about and and make money off it does not carry more weight than my right to be left alone and not be tracked and not be datamined.

Neither is a right. You agreed to be tracked when you signed up for Facebook. If you don't like it, then don't use Facebook.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206543)

Thank you. This is the only sensible position I've seen on this subject. If you're concerned about what Facebook will do with information concerning you (note: not "your" information), then don't give it to them.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (5, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206603)

But what if you never gave it to them?

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207303)

Then why would you need them to forget it?

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207449)

Then why would you need them to forget it?

You buy something from me online using your credit card. I post that information to Facebook. Or maybe you go on vacation and you tell your neighbor you're going away and ask him to watch your house for you. He is an avid facebooker and posts several status updates for himself that says things like "just checkin out my pal mark-t's house for him while he's out of town for three weeks..."

Do you now see why you might have a need for Facebook to forget something that you didn't post there?

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (3, Informative)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207521)

When someone else posts a photo of you in a compromising scenario and tags you in it.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (4, Insightful)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206717)

This is the only sensible position I've seen on this subject. If you're concerned about what Facebook will do with information concerning you (note: not "your" information), then don't give it to them.

I respectfully disagree. The information is mine (posts are copyrighted, surely?) and there should be some degree of control over that information. By that logic --
"if you are concerned with what Google may do with your emails, don't open a Gmail account".
"If you are concerned with what a physician may do with your medical history, don't go to a doctor"
"If you are concerned with what bank may do with your money, do not give bank any of your money"

Also, I am concerned about what other users give to facebook about me. Sometimes simply creating the account is enough to give away a crapload of information. I never understood people who have the time to go through and mark things like "I know this person because I worked with them at X" on Facebook. They are literally working for Facebook with no benefit to them.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207151)

The information is mine (posts are copyrighted, surely?)

You agree to give Facebook an unlimited, global and royalty-free license on any content you post to their site. So, while, yes, you technically own the information you agree to let them use it however they want. You also agree that the way to remove this license is to delete the content off the relevant post yourself.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (2)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207333)

Also, I am concerned about what other users give to facebook about me.

If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207531)

If other people disrespect your privacy by freely giving details about you to facebook, that's an issue between you and those people, not you and facebook.

And requiring facebook to delete that information when you tell them to is an issue between you and facebook.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206775)

So you agree with Eric Schmidt's take on the subject ?

"if you don’t have anything to hide, you have nothing to fear"

I'm feeling like there is a huge discrepancy between the way Americans see privacy and the way European sees it which would explain these kind of silly (disclaimer: I'm European) statements.

To paraphrase: maybe you misunderstood what "privacy" is about ?

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206659)

interesting... never thought about it from that viewpoint, and yet strangely i agree with the statement you make. The more i think about it... i can;t come up with a counter that seems logical.
some one else with bigger brains must help.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206707)

Ridiculous. A corporation doesn't remember. Hard drives do not remember. The first amendment was not designed to protect commercial speech and the Supreme Court has given such speech less protection.

Oh and by the way this is the EU not America.

Out of all the comments, how did this get rated so highly?

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1, Interesting)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206777)

To grant one person the right to not be punched is to deprive another of the right to punch.
Who's rights are more important? The puncher, or the punchee?
Your right to remember me is secondary to my right to not be remembered.

We arent talking about censorship. We are talking about a company datamining my every detail, for profit. So they can market things to me, and sell that info to other people to market things to me. They are essentially selling "me", against my wishes, and with no benefit to myself.

When done to one's physical person its called slavery.
But when done to one's personal information its legal marketing for which one gets absolute zero recompense, and we're supposed to just allow cause its supposedly some form of censorship? Bull.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206831)

To grant one person the right to be forgotten is to deprive another of the right to remember. The sharing of information once legitimately published cannot become illegitimate just because the person involved doesn't want it to be known. The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.

Bullshit

There is no "right to be forgotten" here. Everything that has been published will probably be cached somewhere and available to anyone who copied (remembered) it. You cannot unring that bell.

The privacy right is about not being actively published anymore (or not allowing others to publish what they want about you). Otherwise, by your logic, when Myspace shuts down their pages, they exercised terrible censorship by "forgetting" user's pages.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

rmstar (114746) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206903)

The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.

Yes, it is censorship, but i disagree with your claim that it has nothing to do with priavacy. In a sense, things like this highlight the fact that censorship sometimes is a good thing.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207089)

This, it is blatant censorship by rich people.
We have seen this all too often in the UK with these injunctions and super-injunctions recently. It is absolute bullshit of the highest order.

The only legit right to be forgotten is in the case of identity changing for the sake of protecting people. But those are a very strict case-by-case basis anyway.

You post anything with your public identity in the public world, you deal with the consequences. Period.
Teach people the responsibilities of having an identity in school. Oh, wait, that would make smart people, can't do that can we?
If we have people wanting their privacy, people will want more and more, they will demand more rights, question things more, oh god the inhumanity!

However, Facebook are still beating around the bush when it comes to this. They just want to avoid dealing with it so make up any old crap they can come out with.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

Hey_bob (6104) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207325)

    Would choosing to delete/close my account on facebook (or whatever other site) violate the same"right to remember"? How about just deleting all the posts I ever made? The contents of my posts wouldn't be available to others in much the same way.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207371)

You are free to remember, you just can't keep records.

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207489)

How exactly is it censorship if I wish that a site doesn't publish where I live, where I work, who are my dearest family members, and how much I earn?

Re:Privacy has nothing to do with it (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207553)

The "right" to be forgotten is a form of censorship and has nothing at all to do with privacy.

I think you are both right and wrong on this. It depends on how you implement this "right".

The way I originally heard it, the "right" was essentially "if I ask for something I uploaded to be taken down and deleted, it has to be taken down and deleted". If one quits Facebook and deletes their profile, it should actually be deleted. This I completely support, because while it's technically censorship, it is in the hand of the user and creator of the content, not in someone else's hands. And if someone happened to save that data and re-uploads it, that's governed by libel/slander laws.

If, however, the "right" is "I can demand anything even loosely connected to me be removed from any site", then it's basically the DMCA on an even worse level. I can't support that, because even though I can see good intentions behind it, the level of abuse it's going to cause is enormous. It would dwarf the level of abuse the DMCA gets.

Think twice. (3, Informative)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206547)

Think twice before you post ANYTHING online. Because once its there, its there forever. Use discretion.

Upton Sinclair (4, Informative)

fldsofglry (2754803) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206605)

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! -- Upton Sinclair http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair [wikiquote.org]

Re:Upton Sinclair (1)

fldsofglry (2754803) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206679)

realized TheCarp used the same quote above.

It could be true. (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206719)

Actually, it isn't far-fetched to assume that lawmakers will do something idiotic that causes a bunch of consequences they didn't intend. While I can easily see Facebook trying to language-lawyer this shit to their advantage, I'd give it 50/50 chance the law actually does imply the goofy stuff Facebook says it does.

I believe that laws should always be enforced in full and to the letter, along with all unintended consequences. This way, broken laws can be quickly identified and fixed (or repealed). It also would prevent prosecutors from selectively enforcing obscure provisions of the law to target specific individuals.

When judges and juries start making exceptions for cases that are "obviously not what was meant" we just encourage more sloppy law-making.

Phone numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42206871)

The "right to be forgotten" seems like a bizarre concept. Imagine that my friends post their personal phone numbers and email addresses on Facebook, and I sync that with my phone's address book.

When my friends decide to delete their Facebook account, what exactly happens to my phone's address book? Is that contact information also removed from my phone automatically? Must I keep the Facebook app on my phone just to ensure that my contacts will be deleted on-demand?

What if I already had that information? What if I have had several phone calls with my friend? Is the Facebook app responsible for removing all phone records from my phone to ensure that I don't have access to my friend's phone number?

Is is technically possible to do a one-time sync from Facebook to my phone's address book, or must I also store tracking information that uniquely identifiers each of my friends Facebook profiles? What happens if I uninstall the Facebook app? Must Facebook preemptively delete my contacts just to ensure that I don't keep any illegally?

Re:Phone numbers (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207615)

What if I already had that information?

If your friend tells you to forget his phone number, why would you refuse to do so? Are you going to say "no, asshole, I'm keeping your phone number just to spite you."

Why do you care what your friend tells facebook?

Translation: FB wants to sell your data (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about a year and a half ago | (#42206935)

In other words, FB just wants to sell your data, and will come up with any excuse to justify that.

Maybe they can win either way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207011)

It occurs to me that if Facebook gets slapped down here (because the RTBF applies only to the particular site being requested) then they will have created an out for themselves.

All they would have to do is created a 'client' site, say facebookuserinformation.com, and copy every bit of Facebook data there automatically. Then they can truthfully say, "Yes, your Honor, we have deleted every speck of this user's data from our site" while still retaining it (and selling it) at the client site.

Oooooo... (1)

Jintsui (2759005) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207283)

Can you say Facebook downgrade? Mmmmhmmmm...

Re:Oooooo... (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207833)

I thought they were rapidly approaching penny stock territory or has it leveled off recently.

You people are dumb and/or deceitful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42207513)

Facebook doesn't sell your data. They sell advertising on their own site, which allows demographic and keyword targeting with no personally identifiable information.

Facebook says (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207595)

"the proposal would require social media sites to perform extra tracking to remove data which has been copied to other sites"

aka

We sold the user date to 100's of other companies....

Fuck facebook x 3 (2)

faustoc4 (2766155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207673)

Fuck facebook Fuck facebook Fuck facebook They are misunderstanding on purpose what is clearly written, also they cite an impossible limitation: they cannot control what is published in other sites/social networks. Well, no one is asking to achieve the impossible, just erase my data from your cloud whenever I ask

No tracking required (1)

headcase88-2 (2613991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207695)

Silly claim by Facebook. Facebook should already ask you before you send any of your information to a different site. If the user accepts this, FB wouldn't be on the hook for the data on other sites (assuming the EU law was made rationally), therefore they wouldn't need to "keep more tracking data". It would be the user's responsibility to knock on the door of each site they allowed FB to share information with and tell them to delete all their data. Of course, if FB is sharing your data to other sites without your permission, that's a whole other issue.

Yes, please (2)

atisss (1661313) | about a year and a half ago | (#42207845)

Please do track to which sites you are copying my information, and also please can I see the list.
Option to remove some information from specific site would be nice.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...