Let the default download of a new firefox randonly select either with- or without-DRM. Cound the number of times the same user goes back and selects a non-default browser from a list that explicitly says whether they have DRM or not.

Done well, no-one will even notice.

In this experiment, I expect the null hypothesis will be "no-one cares", and will win (:-))

For one, legal publishers.

Lexis Nexis and Westlaw are massive special-purpose search engines dealing in exactly this kind of data: court reports. Lexis Nexis is also well-known as a newspaper/magazine search engine.

Imagine a lawyer in the UK trying to refer to a classic interpretation and discovering the case was no longer reported, as from the point of view of one of the participants, it was "no longer relevant".

In non-EU countries, it if was a case about a minor, the page would have the names removed. Similarly, if a participant had received a pardon, they could apply to the court to remove their name from the published report. The original report would be available, of course, to lawyers willing to agree to confidentiality controls.

It's already having an effect: in the UK their privacy commission just got credit reporting company misbehavior dumped back on their plate: turns out they're the legal equivalent of search engines. Now add any other "information intermediary" like Lexis Nexis, which publishes law reports...

It's cheap in the short run, especially if you can't afford the hardware. That's why people used to lease time on IBM mainframes in computer centres. Now people lease time on x86s in computer centres, not realizing that buying enough for your base load is affordable, as well as cheaper in the long run.

The leasing (cloud) people just love people who don't know about costs.

I did a table-based setup for an electoral candidate, and could up- and down-load subsets to spreadsheets for major changes or offline work and it has a simple form for single-line changes. Much processing consisted of select, export, format and print, as many volunteers understood paper and pen (;-))

Regrettable... I had taken the " Google failed to argue that such a decision would be unfair because the information was already legally in the public domain." as an indication that they had not been heard, rather than that they had not made the point. Thanks for the pointer!

[81] However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, in situations such as that at issue in the main proceedings a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, that balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.

... suggests that they might make a "correct results" argument, to further narrow the case and exclude companies "scrubbing" their reputations via takedown orders.

Followup: looking at the ruling, there's a contradiction between "processing" and "search", where Google has failed to argue that their result ranking is either fair or dictated by necessary. This may take an additional case, to distinguish when one can legitimately ask to be removed and when one can't. I'm guessing Google will argue that they would have had to to engage in at least malfeasance to qualify for removal of results (;-))

The court, of course: they purportedly complained that Google hadn't made their case. That's why I mentioned "standing". Supreme courts of different jurisdictions have differing rules about rehearings, but almost all require an application to be considered, just because they are supreme.

Courts are based on both sides arguing their case: Google needs to gain standing and appeal.

It's a genuine risk if standards get lowered in some areas, as eventually they could "surround" the EU with a desert of lower standards and enable more and more poor products.

Historically, software that can only be sold in one country has suffered badly in the marketplace against software that can be sold everywhere. I first saw that at GEAC, when they were certified in (if memory serves) Germany and started seeing many more sales in countries we'd never heard of before (;-))

If you have to have software that's designed to meet a required lowness of confidentiality, you'll be the only country writing it. You probably won't trust another tin-pot country's software, and will have to keep doing it all yourself.

Vendors want to sell software that meets the highest standards, so they can sell it into lots of countries, not write individual specials for every tin-pot dictator on the planet.

Image how much fun it will be, trying to write your own routers, your own google, your own facebook, etc, etc. All so you can lower the quality.

They require notice, so the pilot can be informed of any localized special concerns, such as "this is an airport, stay away".

If ip in set(FCC) {
... permanently overprint "Welcome to your new, non-neutral, net"
... speed = slow
}
else {
... for 10 seconds overprint "We're slowing the FCC, you should too"
... speed = fast
}