Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

+ - Japanese court orders Google to delete past reports on man's arrest

AmiMoJo writes: The Saitama District Court has ordered Google Inc. to delete past reports on a man's arrest over molestation from its online search results after ruling that they violate the man's personal rights. The man, who was arrested about three years ago after molesting a girl under 18, and fined 500,000 yen (£2600, $4000). "He harbours remorse over the incident and is leading a new life. The search results prevent him from rehabilitating himself," the man's defence counsel said. The presiding judge recognized that the incident was not of historical or social significance, that the man is not in public office and that his offence was relatively minor. He concluded there was little public interest in keeping such reports displayed online three years after the incident. The judge acknowledged that search engines play a public role in assisting people's right to know.

Originally from Surado, the new name for Slashdot Japan:

Comment: Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score 1, Informative) 114 114

This sort of subjective law is actually quite common in Common Law countries, and seems to work reasonably well in practice. There are typically certain requirements, such as having to show actual harm took place (psychologist's report etc.) which means mere offence isn't enough. The prosecution would have to show, for example, that someone deliberately set out to harm a vulnerable individual.

There have been cases were people with existing mental illnesses have been driven to suicide. The people harassing them knew what they were doing. Society has an interest in protecting people from that kind of thing, because it's not a free speech issue. Harassment isn't free speech, it isn't necessary to allow it in order to allow full freedom to express unpopular ideas.

Comment: Re:Perhaps half of us are (Score 1) 225 225

Some of them did. The people worst affected, particularly by unemployment, are the young ones who were only children or not even born when that stuff was going on.

The Greek government has a point. The only way out is for the Greek economy to reform and grow. Endless grinding austerity will just cause another revolution. The first one was peaceful, but if it fails the next one won't be. What do young, angry Greeks have to lose?

Comment: Re:David Cameron is actually a genuine idiot (Score 3, Insightful) 206 206

It's the media. When it was pointed out that Twitter informs users who are the subject of data access requests by the government they framed it as Twitter tipping off terrorists that they were being investigated. Not as Twitter protecting its users from over-use of surveillance and being transparent with them, but as colluding with the enemy. It was disgusting.

Also, what kind of bizarro definition of "socialist" implies wanting a surveillance state? If anything, the more socialist states in the EU tend to be the ones that have better protections for privacy and freedom because they understand that the government works FOR the people.

Comment: Re:"Or Tor?" (Score 2) 206 206

Tor isn't compromised, it's secure for what it does. Compromised end points are not something it is designed to protect against. It isn't a substitute for HTTPS or checking certificates. It doesn't stop you being an idiot and giving away your location or software on your computer leaking your real IP address. That's not what Tor is.

Also, passwords on zip files have actually been effective for over a decade now, when AES encryption was added. Zip file encryption is now actually quite good, covering both data and filenames, and using a secure hash to generate the AES key from your password. Essentially it is as strong as the password, and has been since V6.2.

Comment: Re:Nevermind the bollocks, here's David Cameron (Score 3, Interesting) 206 206

Our democracy is broken. Here are the the numbers of votes each party received, followed by the number of MPs they got:

Party                        Votes                Seats

Conservative Party            11,300,303 (36.9%)    330 (50.8%)
Labour Party                9,344,328 (30.4%)    232 (35.7%)
UK Independence Party        3,881,129 (12.6%)    1 (0.2%)
Liberal Democrats            2,415,888 (7.9%)    8 (1.2%)
Scottish National Party        1,454,436 (4.7%)    56 (8.6%)
Green Party                1,157,613 (3.8%)    1 (0.2%)

So as you can see, 3.8 million people voted for UKIP (a bunch of wankers, but still...) but ended up with just one MP and no power at all. The greens got the same number of MPs with juste 1.1 million votes. Only 1.5 million people voted for the SNP and they got 56 seats.

The system is rigged so that power is always held by either Labour or the Conservatives. No-one else can get a look in, even if like UKIP they manage to gain quite and impressive amount of support. 12.6% of the vote, 0.2% of the seats. See how it works?

So at election time the choice is basically Labour or the Tories. The Tories will sell our freedom off with glee, and Labour aren't much better. But no-one cares about that come election time. Since the system is designed to avoid hung parliaments and any kind of power sharing it tends to produce totalitarian governments who rip away our rights and freedoms (human rights are being flushed away as we speak).

UK Government Illegally Spied On Amnesty International 85 85

Mark Wilson writes with this excerpt from a story at Beta News: A court has revealed that the UK intelligence agency, GCHQ, illegally spied on human rights organization Amnesty International. It is an allegation that the agency had previously denied, but an email from the Investigatory Powers Tribunal backtracked on a judgement made in June which said no such spying had taken place.

The email was sent to Amnesty International yesterday, and while it conceded that the organization was indeed the subject of surveillance, no explanation has been offered. It is now clear that, for some reason, communications by Amnesty International were illegally intercepted, stored, and examined. What is not clear is when the spying happened, what data was collected and, more importantly, why it happened.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.