This was a case of blatant infringement [...]
No, it wasn't.
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
This was a case of blatant infringement [...]
No, it wasn't.
That's not what you said earlier.
I'm not BasilBrush, so there's no "what I said earlier" to speak of. What *I* am saying, however, is that speaking of walking up to someone and yelling "motherfucker" is missing BasilBrush's point, because the word's function in that particular context is that of a whole sentence. Saying what amounts to "you regularly have sex with your own mother!" is what might get you clobbered, not the word itself. Walk up to a person and yell "motherfucker!" while pointing at someone else and the person who was in one case so offended as to break your nose might actually laugh about it with you instead.
... asks for clear and accurate names that "reflect the functionality of the app,"
I guess there will be no more "Shazam" for the Windows Phone platform, then?
And that receiving and carrying it separately for each customer (using a separte tiny antenna and cheap-in-quantity integrated circuit digital radio receiver) was a transparent workaround that attempted to use an interpretation of the letter of the law to violate its intent).
In other words, you're saying they broke the law by complying with the law.
Sue the company who is making the illegal product and force them to take down all sites and advertisements.
As far as I know, the company making the "illegal" product is American. The company's website has not been shut down because it hasn't [yet] been found to have acted illegally by a US court. The BC court therefore wants Google to remove all links to a company that could very well be perfectly legal outside Canada.
Because the right to be forgotten is not designed to destroy the evidence.
Right. It's only designed to destroy any links to that evidence, which, for some reason, you don't think is a bad thing.
Instead it is designed to make it just a little bit harder to destroy someone's life.
In fact, it's designed to make it a lot harder to find the content in question, and do so whether or not doing otherwise would destroy someone's life.
If for example your ex-wife or girlfriend falsely accuses you of being a pedophile...
That's libel, and it's illegal even without the "right to be forgotten". If, on the other hand, the claim is not false, why should you have the right to sweep it under the rug?
It's better than being know for owing lots of money. From the current story it will be clear that he no longers ows that money.
Why should it matter? Creditors shouldn't be looking at Google results to make lending decisions anyway. Let's regulate that instead of Google.
You're not suppressing information, you're just making it very difficult to find. How comforting.
Instead of whitewashing history, how about promoting critical thinking, research, and debating skills so people can get the full picture? People will eventually get used to the idea that you can't take everything on the Internet at face value, without hiding any content or throwing any factual information down the memory hole. It may take a few generations, but as the old guard dies and is replaced by the new, people will learn to better handle what they read online.
By being able to get old search results removed if they're outdated, you don't remove your original record - it would still be visible at the bailiff's office (or for a paedophile example in police records - which are the only source you SHOULD use as a definitive reference) - so "B" can't get out of his responsibilities; B can only influence the filter bubble that is in the google search results.
Why shouldn't police records be searchable? Why can't Google allow them to be searched? What you're saying is that, since the records are still available somewhere, it is perfectly acceptable to make them almost impossible to find. That's not good.
I'm sure there are easier ways to kidnap a child than to rewrite the firmware on a particular vehicle. As for systematic trafficking in people through the use of hacked vehicles, I doubt such a practice would be sustainable except in places where human trafficking isn't already commonplace.
"Let alone the most obvious danger hacking of the service to facilitate remote control abduction of children."
If we talk about near future it seems unlikely that an autonomous car will be able to handle all possible situations
You know what else isn't able to handle all possible situations? A human driver.
In fact, human reaction times are pretty lousy compared to computers. If anything, allowing a vehicle's occupants to override an automated system could lead to more accidents rather than fewer ones.
No, it only increases Adobe's control over their own software. This does not give them control over you.
You're being intentionally obtuse. It not only gives Adobe control over their software, but also control over your ability to use the software. That's the only kind of "control over you" Dogtanian was talking about.
The fact that Adobe once offered an unlimited license to their software was their choice at the time. It didn't entitle you to anything regarding their future business.
None of which is in dispute, as I'm sure you know.
Any "right to be forgotten" needs to be accompanied by a "right to remember". Information legitimately published should never have to be removed from the web or pruned from search results. Information disclosed illegally is, of course, a different matter, but legitimate information, once published, should never be suppressed.
Yesterdays decision is a blow to freedom of speech. It allows sweeping factual, legitimately published information under the rug simply because the subject doesn't like the fact that the information is public. It is censorship and nothing less.
A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done. -- Fred Allen