In related news. DEA to facebook: Who cares?
The same kind of protagonists are performing the same schtick in the US and in Europe.
STEM is called MINT, skill gap is Fachkräftemangel, and H1B is called "blue card" (yes. someone mixed up work permit and permanent residency when looking for a catchy name)
Arguments are the same, debate is the same.
And it becomes slightly absurd when immigration officers at a US border somehow expect every other country but the US to be a 3rd world hole people would be happy to trade in for a McJob in the US of A. They can't even imagine that someone likes their job and their home country and actually WANTS to go home after their visit.
Exactly. And that's what you don't want to turn up if someone does a casual search with your name. On the other hand, he can't expect to have historical facts (like his foreclosure) purged from the historic archives. That was 1984.
And we ALL need to learn that a bankrupcy 20 years ago hardly effects his current financial situation.
But still putting that into the hand of one commercial search engine is the wrong way to do so. That "making hard to find" should also start at the source. My suggestion would be to have the newspaper archive use an additional robots.txt/metadata like X-ARCHIVE:True to indicate that this site may be indexed, but contains out of date information that should NOT show up unless someone does a specific archived/cached search request
Available to all search engines. You don't have to go to all serach engines to have something hidden from simple searches
Historical information still available and easily searchable - if desired so
Searching uiser knows in advance that he will receive outdated information
I absolutely agree that it's better that things should be forgotten in many cases for many reasons. I do wonder if the search engine is entirely the right place to do the forgetting. Search engines typically index content because it exists. Does right to be forgotten also give a right to have content taken down?.
In this case: Explicitly no. In a related ruling in the same case, the website with the archived newspaper article is explicitly covered by freedom of press and has NOT to take donw anything.
But removing the link from the search engine will at least make uncovering 20 year old sins of your youth as difficult as it was when you had to spend the time in a dead-tree newspaper archive.
Thanks to a prior ruling (in the same case) the source is explicitly protected by press freedom.
After losing that round at court, that spanish guy who went broke years ago simply kept on sueing the next in line, which happend to be Google.
It's not even a law. It's a court ruling.
a law would at least give some legal foundation. Another court may decide in a few months that some other name should habe not e taken down.
1) Things that don't exist cant leak or get stolen
2) Computer security matters for everyone!
I now that #1 was the main point of the victim blamers. But it's simple and true. It's the victimblamers conclusion that is wrong that you shouldn't have (or create) anything.
Whoever did this was clearly hacking and "stealing" a huge bunch of personal data. Including, amongst others, photos including, among others, private photos, including, among others nude pictures.
Of course the net and all media are only intrested in those. Sex sells. That's still true. But from a legal POV, you should keep things in perpective. When someone mugs a person stealing his satchel containing a joint, doesn't make it a drug crime.
No. it hat 2 short inbetween. for SMS. Which is pretty logical, but scared the heck out of me when I heard it for the first time.
Increasing my STEAM capabilities is the best excuse to install Steam on my PC and spend the rest of the week gaming....
I had sympathy during the short time when they were known as "people eat tasty animals"
They COULD sell your data in the future, but they are unlikely to do so because what makes that data valuable is their exclusivity.
Actually selling them would make them worthless.
And I'm not saying those who lost that trust are wrong.
While surveillance itself is problematic, too, it wasn't a real problem before. I used to be comfortable with the fact that in some cases, police and FBI could wiretap phones and intercept email. So surveillance isn't exactly the problem either.
The "problem" is that this power has been heavily misused and that the trust that surveillance would only be directed to crime suspects is now lost. And people losing trust in police IS a problem.