No, it's my business to decide who I think makes a suitable accountant for ME, not the governments. End of.

Do they really? Or is it just that the level of risk is too high for most people to stomach for themselves, despite their willingness to push it on others? I don't see what business anyone else has deciding what level of risk I want to accept into my business dealings.

Is/aught. And yes, I am aware of that fact.

No, I'm suggesting that trying to invoke the Streisand effect will neither effectively hide the past nor effect social change. Since we can't hide the past we should go for social change instead. Which is exactly what I said in the later part of that paragraph.

Well it's entirely possible that oversupply of drivers will push down the cost of taking a taxi. This in turn could lead to more taxi journeys, or more jobs in other service sectors, as people spend that saved money elsewhere. Also it could push down the cost of living. I'm not saying this will be the outcome, but that your argument relies on an assumed, and unjustified, premise.

I would say that. I would say it's not the government's business to tell me what should give me concern. Would you employee an accountant that had been previously convicted for stealing money from clients? Would you want the government to hide that record so they have a second chance? No.

I agree society isn't quick enough to grant second chance, but I also understand why many people (even those who preach second chances) aren't so quick to give them when it's their kids/money/property etc. in danger. But we do need cultural change: the level of stigma attached to bankruptcy (for instance) in Europe is far too high - I think we would do far better to adopt a bit of the US's attitude to that. But simply hiding someone's history won't make me change what I would think about their history if I were to know it - it won't address the true problem, at best it might relieve the symptoms a bit.

Oh they're still extant. But you're not allowed to talk about them (at least, not if your name's Google and it's within the context that right to be forgotten is about). Which make the fact they exist, rightly or wrongly, rather impotent. Please stop pretending this is a non-issue. If right-to-be-forgotten had as little effect as you make out people wouldn't submit requests. The fact that this is being used proves that there are consequences - consequences that we are right to debate. So don't take the cheating way out and claim there's no effect, provide a proper defence (or attack) of this so-called right.

You should be able to engage in hyperbolic speech, that nobody would believe is intended in any other fashion, without legal consequences, so even if the consequences were entirely foreseeable (thousand of such comments are made online every day without consequence, so I'd dispute that assertion) that doesn't make the governments actions right. I'm sure you wouldn't be invoking this logic in a discussion about rape?

But, but, but I need that internet connected pet rock!

Typically speaking these connections are made via a third party (such as Fon) who would appear as the IP address owner/ISP for that connection. So Bob buys an access voucher and accesses some kind of illegal content through my router. His connection, however doesn't go to my ISP, but is VPNed (or similar) straight to Fon, by the router. So when the feds get his IP address and they look it up they see that it is owned by Fon. They'll ask Fon who it is and, depending on how they keep their records, they'll either say "ain't got a clue" or "It was Bob. This is his credit card number". The only time I can see the identity of the owner of the router being relevant is if the police needed to pin down an IRL location (say to try and figure out the region in which a paedophile lives).

IANAL, but provided you don't breach your ISPs rules about connection sharing (in many cases Fon is built into the router by the ISP, so this should be a non issue in those cases) all potential liability would lie on Fon as the service provider. All your router does is provide a route for Fon's customers to connect to the Fon network.

Yet the article gives no legal basis for this ruling. I'd rather be swamped by rising seas than live under the dictats of some random judge.

Wait, what? Did you just say that committing to reducing CO2 emissions is "a core value of democratic representation"? And that if we don't reduce CO2 emissions we don't have democracy? And if we reduce CO2 emissions, irrespective of whether or not it's the will of the people, we will have democracy?

They paid me with a house on a mountain so I can laugh in the face of rising sea levels.

I didn't say otherwise. If legislation doesn't do that, then legislation is the way to fix it. Not the court. But hey, attacking reasonable arguments about the separation of powers and governance systems is much more difficult that just pretending I said something I didn't about how we aught to deal with pollution.

No, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to a judge and a lobby group with expensive lawyers. If the plaintiff was McEvil Multinational inc., rather than Hippies.org, I'm sure your tune here would be very different.

It's not. When that "independent legal obligation to their citizens" is laid out (specifically) in statute (and is only used to interfere with statutes (as opposed to the executive) when it is a law of appropriate authority (ie. constitution)). But when a court uses the term "independent legal obligation towards their citizens" to mean "there's no basis in law so we made one up", that's a problem.

Mod parent up.

Even if they had made the promises to the Dutch people, manifesto commitments aren't generally considered legally enforceable (and shouldn't be, for a whole raft of reasons - possibility of coalitions, practicality (party can't control what the legislature will pass), changing circumstances, the fact there already exists a recourse for grievances (elections and recall petition) etc.).

From TFA (emphasis added):

In no sane system does a court have the ability to pull legal obligations out of its arse, as it seems to have done here. This is a very bad day for the Dutch people. They are now officially an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by Judge Hans Hofhuis.