Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It’s funny that’s downvoted as it is usually the argument from the right wing garage denizens whenever any right is mentioned, even something as fundamental as the right to live, that any rights only exist because power enforces them.
I have no idea what or who you're talking about.
I'm certainty in favor of the right to life. It bothers me that the US government is not using its power to enforce the right to life.
Just what I said, that rights only become meaningful as society agrees on and enforces them.
I'm not sure what you mean by rights "becoming meaningful." Rights exist independent of society, and you can judge a good government from a bad government by their willingness to protect the peoples' rights.
What do you make of the US government’s unwillingness to protect my right to be forgotten?
You don't have a right to be forgotten.
Who decreed that?
You? The US founding fathers? The same people who decreed every man is created equal, but thenmade the pigs more equal than othersfailed to realize that black people are men too? I don't think they were infallible.The Founding Fathers weren't infallible, but the one who endowed all men with the rights in the first place is.
The Founders improperly applied the concept to black people and several other groups, which is one of the reasons that the insufficiently Scottish Enlightenment-based US Government circa 1800 is a worse government than the one we have today.
Nobody believes you do, not even the French. (If they did, they would have made the newspaper take the story down.)
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Yeah, rights do. But the RTBF isn't actually a right. If it was, wouldn't the newspaper have to take the actual story down?
Remember, all Google said was "The French Newspaper put this article on their website. Here's a link."
Natural laws does not give you the right to have the government force a third party to do something nice on your behalf.
What are natural laws and who is the arbiter of what are and aren't rights under natural law?
Rights under natural law are the things that government is prevented from doing so that they (or in certain cases, a third party) do not harm you.
The RTBF represents the government preventing third parties from taking an action because preventing them from taking the action would help you.
There's a distinction between "actively helps" and "fails to harm."
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
There is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world.
Where exactly is this codified?
-
@HardwareGeek said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
We could pass a Constitutional Amendment to change the structure of the government to make it harder for them to do so if we could get enough of a
pluralitysupermajority.Although a majority is
a plurality, in politics plurality is almost always used to refer to a plurality that is not a majority — more votes than anyone else, but less than half (because there were more than two candidates). And even a majority is not sufficient for a Constitutional amendment; it requires a large supermajority, IIRC 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.Did I fuck that up? JFC. I originally wrote "ubermajority," but in my defense, the Stanley Cup Final was on last night and a few players who were great when they were on my team finally got to hoist the thing.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
So there must be some difference ... as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
European courts are stupider than US courts (and it takes some serious effort to beat US courts at stupidity).
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not acting like a regular entity using their right to free speech, but rather that they are just acting as intermediaries.
That's not a meaningful distinction under American law
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction
I'm still doing some research related to President Trump's "Preventing Online Censorship" draft Executive Order, and hope to post more...
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
There is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world.
Where exactly is this codified?
-
Exodus 20 (NIV)
The Ten Commandments - And God spoke all these words: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for ...
-
All the stuff I said to Remi about "Even if we disagree, that doesn't mean we have to hate each other?" That goes for you too.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
There is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world.
Where exactly is this codified?
-
Exodus 20 (NIV)
The Ten Commandments - And God spoke all these words: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for ...
-
All the stuff I said to Remi about "Even if we disagree, that doesn't mean we have to hate each other?" That goes for you too.
Ah. So doesn't apply to me, as I do not believe in any religion that has that as its tenets then. Good to know.
Edit: I don't necessarily mean that as sarcastically as that can be read, going back over it, but one cannot claim that there is a "universal, absolute moral code that applies to everyone" that comes from a religion that people can choose not to belong to or believe in. Religion can (and in many cases, does) act as a moral code, but it should only do so for people who actively choose to be a member or believer of it. It cannot and should not be claimed to have jurisdiction over non-members or non-believers.
-
-
How do we have freedom of religion if our government relies on the principles of one specific religion?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
That's not a meaningful distinction under American law, which is why the French court shouldn't be applying it in American-to-American transactions.
But the key thing is that they didn't apply it to an American-to-American transaction. A court only rules in the specific, narrow case that is brought before it. That case (and all others I've seen) involved a French person (or rather a person under French jurisdiction i.e. living in France). The court didn't say anything about any other transaction that might or might not happen.
The court also didn't say that Google couldn't show those search results to an American. It said that it couldn't show those results in areas under French law (not explicitly so, but it's axiomatic in a ruling that it applies to where the law applies... and somehow we're back to international law not being law at all despite the name!). Now I don't really see how Google can manage that perfectly without removing the result for everyone (although I guess if anyone has enough knowledge to properly geolocalise someone, it's Google...), but that's not a concern for the court.
As I understand it (
) a different case had already set the precedent that the French courts weren't supposed to use RTBF to force a newspaper to censor an article, so this guy didn't bother suing them.Yeah but my point is that I couldn't actually find such a case. I found a couple of articles that reference a bunch of such cases (on some sort of legal precedent blog), and they didn't mention a case where the newspaper was sued. Again, I'm not claiming it didn't happen (because tbh I vaguely remember that such a case did happen), but since I haven't seen anything about it, I can't say anything about what a judge might or might not have said.
All that we know for sure is that Google was convicted.
Doesn't this fly in the face of your compromise? If Americans feel that X is morally right and EU citizens feel that Y is morally right, should the EU court force Y on American-to-American transactions?
Again, as far as I know no French court did that. They only set a ruling in some specific French-to-American transactions, not on any broad category of American-to-American transactions. They are mandated to rule in one specific case, which they did.
I don't have moral issues with that.
Now if Google can't comply with the French ruling without changing their international operations, that's no concern of a French judge, but that becomes indeed a different moral issue (to me at least). And here I can agree with you that it becomes much more debatable whether this is a good thing or not (as it would indeed tend to go against the compromise I set out). The question becomes, essentially, is forcing an entity to have separate activities per country (so that they can enforce different rulings) a bad thing? I haven't answered that question.
Like I said, I'm not coming to liberate you guys. But what's the EU court doing?
Answering the specific question that was brought to it. Not ruling on any category of transactions.
So you're not coming to liberate us either?
No. We've got enough crazy on our side without adding yours. Besides, we already did that the very first time and I'm not sure it really turned out well...
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
More broadly, though, I'm worried about companies deciding to conform to foreign regulations globally because foreign regulations, when applied domestically, are not made with the consent of the governed.
And that's a very valid concern.
Unfortunately, it works every which way (US laws aren't made with my consent).
Like I've said a million times, I'm less worried about US law being enforced internationally because US law is based on the correct understanding of rights.
I understand why Europeans feel differently.
Yes, because while US law's heart is in the right place, it is stupid beyond hope of salvation.
Yeah, it's one of those, "It's the worst except for everything else" kind of situations, but you gotta do something, eh?
Except that it isn't.
Well, good luck finding someone else who thinks it's good.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
they are not acting like a regular entity using their right to free speech, but rather that they are just acting as intermediaries.
That's not a meaningful distinction under American law
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction
I'm still doing some research related to President Trump's "Preventing Online Censorship" draft Executive Order, and hope to post more...
I'm missing the part where he explains that search engines aren't publishing their own speech. That speech being "There's a site about $TOPIC at $LINK."
In fact, it looks like he wrote a white paper arguing that exact point if you scroll down to the bottom.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
How do we have freedom of religion if our government relies on the principles of one specific religion?
The US government does not rely on the principles of a specific religion. They rely on the principles of the Scottish Enlightenment, which can be applied by any people who follow any religion.
The One True Universal Moral Code, which is the one that appears in the official translation of the Bible endorsed by my religion (
), is different than the principles on which the government operates.The moral code is compatible with the principles upon which the US government is founded, but so are several others.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm missing the part where he explains that search engines aren't publishing their own speech.
You said it's not a meaningful distinction under US law. That blanket statement is false. Publishers, distributors, and platforms are subject to different rules under US law.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm missing the part where he explains that search engines aren't publishing their own speech.
You said it's not a meaningful distinction under US law. That blanket statement is false. Publishers, distributors, and platforms are subject to different rules under US law.
Publishers, distributors, and platforms all have the same right to Freedom of the Press, so with regards to Freedom of the Press, there's not a meaningful distinction.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm missing the part where he explains that search engines aren't publishing their own speech.
You said it's not a meaningful distinction under US law. That blanket statement is false. Publishers, distributors, and platforms are subject to different rules under US law.
Publishers, distributors, and platforms all have the same right to Freedom of the Press, so with regards to Freedom of the Press, there's not a meaningful distinction.
His point is that it's a meaningful distinction in other ways.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
There is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world.
Where exactly is this codified?
-
Exodus 20 (NIV)
The Ten Commandments - And God spoke all these words: “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for ...
-
All the stuff I said to Remi about "Even if we disagree, that doesn't mean we have to hate each other?" That goes for you too.
Ah. So doesn't apply to me, as I do not believe in any religion that has that as its tenets then. Good to know.
Edit: I don't necessarily mean that as sarcastically as that can be read, going back over it, but one cannot claim that there is a "universal, absolute moral code that applies to everyone" that comes from a religion that people can choose not to belong to or believe in. Religion can (and in many cases, does) act as a moral code, but it should only do so for people who actively choose to be a member or believer of it. It cannot and should not be claimed to have jurisdiction over non-members or non-believers.
I read this sarcastically the first time, and was all ready to come back with a sarcastic response like
: It still applies to you whether you believe it or not. But since you're not being sarcastic, I won't be either.
Of course I can say that there's a universal moral code that applies to all people for all times. I literally believe that to be the case and am hoping to convince people of it. Just like I'm hoping to convince people that EU laws shouldn't be applied in US-to-US transactions and that this particular law is a bad idea in French-to-French transactions. (@remi, I promise I'll find you the link that shows that the French court told Google to apply it in the US. Just haven't gotten there yet.)
That's what we're doing here, right? Trying to convince each other of our beliefs? If we were just shitposting, we could do that in the garage.
Now, in all non-tyrannical governments, there's limits to what believers can make non-believers actually do. Those limits are there for a good reason, and in fact my religion actually imposes many of those same limits on believers without the government needing to.
But trying to say that you're not allowed to claim that there is such a thing as absolute morality is... I don't get why you would want to do that.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
That's what we're doing here, right? Trying to convince each other of our beliefs?
It may be for you, honestly, but it's not for me. I don't care to convince anybody to believe anything in particular (at least where religion is concerned) and I expect people to understand that while their religion applies to them, they need to respect that as someone who is not a member of their religion that their religion's laws and expectations do not equally apply to me.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I literally believe that to be the case and am hoping to convince people of it.
I respect that you believe that, but please don't try to convince me (you'll fail). Your god's laws mean nothing to me if I don't believe your god exists.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I expect people to understand that while their religion applies to them, they need to respect that as someone who is not a member of their religion that their religion's laws and expectations do not equally apply to me.
I hope you read the parts of my posts where I talked about that distinction.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I did, but I was speaking of religious people in general, not about you specifically. It seems to be a very common thing here in the US for many religious people to try and force their views, rules, and morals upon the rest of us via the avenue of enshrining them in law rather than bothering to take into account that people exist outside of their religion.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear I did, but I was speaking of religious people in general, not about you specifically.
OK fine.
It seems to be a very common thing here in the US for many religious people to try and force their views, rules, and morals upon the rest of us via the avenue of enshrining them in law rather than bothering to take into account that people exist outside of their religion.
I can be sympathetic to that view. It bothers me when religious people from outside my religion try to enshrine things in law that go against my religion.
There's a million topics in the garage about the religion that's the worst offender of this, so if you want to talk about them, please reply to me in one of those topics.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I can be sympathetic to that view. It bothers me when religious people from outside my religion try to enshrine things in law that go against my religion.
Thank you. I was intentionally trying not to be specific in calling out any particular groups or anything to avoid this becoming Garage-bait, just mostly trying to espouse that those religions' "universal moral code" doesn't actually have any power or jurisdiction over me, a non-believer, despite what they may believe.
You may now return to arguing about the French.
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the key thing is that they [the French court] didn't apply it to an American-to-American transaction.
I found it. The European Court of Justice eventually overturned the ruling, but the French court did rule that Google had to censor American search results.
Google wins landmark right to be forgotten case
A privacy regulator had sought to force firm to delist links across the world and not just Europe.
BTW, here's the ruling that said that newspapers can't be sued under RTTF but Google can.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The Founding Fathers weren't infallible, but the one who endowed all men with the rights in the first place is.
There you go again …
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Yeah, rights do. But the RTBF isn't actually a right. If it was, wouldn't the newspaper have to take the actual story down?
Everything you need to know about the "Right to be forgotten" - GDPR.eu
Also known as the right to erasure, the GDPR gives individuals the right to ask organizations to delete their personal data. But organizations don’t always have to do it....
Scroll down to When does the right to be forgotten apply?, especially the second set of bullet points that explains to which kind of information the right doesn’t apply.
In this particular case you keep going on about, I would guess that Google’s links to the newspaper article constitute:—
• An organization is relying on legitimate interests as its justification for processing an individual’s data, the individual objects to this processing, and there is no overriding legitimate interest for the organization to continue with the processing.
while the newspaper article being linked to falls under:—
• The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.
Though I kind of doubt this answer will satisfy you, given that we’re involved in a discussion on the Internet …
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The Founding Fathers weren't infallible, but the one who endowed all men with the rights in the first place is.
There you go again …
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Yeah, rights do. But the RTBF isn't actually a right. If it was, wouldn't the newspaper have to take the actual story down?
Everything you need to know about the "Right to be forgotten" - GDPR.eu
Also known as the right to erasure, the GDPR gives individuals the right to ask organizations to delete their personal data. But organizations don’t always have to do it....
Scroll down to When does the right to be forgotten apply?, especially the second set of bullet points that explains to which kind of information the right doesn’t apply.
Not sure what the EU's explanation of the mechanics of its laws has to do with whether it's actually a right versus just a law.
In this particular case you keep going on about, I would guess that Google’s links to the newspaper article constitute:—
• An organization is relying on legitimate interests as its justification for processing an individual’s data, the individual objects to this processing, and there is no overriding legitimate interest for the organization to continue with the processing.
while the newspaper article being linked to falls under:—
• The data is being used to exercise the right of freedom of expression and information.
Though I kind of doubt this answer will satisfy you, given that we’re involved in a discussion on the Internet …
No, it doesn't.
Are the people who own Google entitled to
exercise the right of freedom of expression and information?
-
@HardwareGeek said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
So there must be some difference ... as far as the court is concerned. Can you guess what that is?
European courts are stupider than US courts (and it takes some serious effort to beat US courts at stupidity).
Keep telling yourself that.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It’s funny that’s downvoted as it is usually the argument from the right wing garage denizens whenever any right is mentioned, even something as fundamental as the right to live, that any rights only exist because power enforces them.
I have no idea what or who you're talking about.
I'm certainty in favor of the right to life. It bothers me that the US government is not using its power to enforce the right to life.
Just what I said, that rights only become meaningful as society agrees on and enforces them.
I'm not sure what you mean by rights "becoming meaningful." Rights exist independent of society, and you can judge a good government from a bad government by their willingness to protect the peoples' rights.
What do you make of the US government’s unwillingness to protect my right to be forgotten?
You don't have a right to be forgotten.
Who decreed that?
You? The US founding fathers? The same people who decreed every man is created equal, but thenmade the pigs more equal than othersfailed to realize that black people are men too? I don't think they were infallible.The Founding Fathers weren't infallible, but the one who endowed all men with the rights in the first place is.
But I wasn't even born back then!?
The Founders improperly applied the concept to black people and several other groups, which is one of the reasons that the insufficiently Scottish Enlightenment-based US Government circa 1800 is a worse government than the one we have today.
Nobody believes you do, not even the French. (If they did, they would have made the newspaper take the story down.)
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Yeah, rights do. But the RTBF isn't actually a right.
Yes it is. Now what are you going to do about that?
If it was, wouldn't the newspaper have to take the actual story down?
That's for a court to decide, and it's been mentioned that there probably wasn't even a court case about it. Besides that, one court's failure to uphold a right doesn't mean it's not a right. Otherwise I am certain you could find cases do invalidate every single one of your rights.
Remember, all Google said was "The French Newspaper put this article on their website. Here's a link."
Natural laws does not give you the right to have the government force a third party to do something nice on your behalf.
What are natural laws and who is the arbiter of what are and aren't rights under natural law?
Rights under natural law are the things that government is prevented from doing so that they (or in certain cases, a third party) do not harm you.
The RTBF represents the government preventing third parties from taking an action because preventing them from taking the action would help you.
There's a distinction between "actively helps" and "fails to harm."
That's meaningless as you might as well put that in a different perspective. You're saying the government forces Google to help me, I'm saying the government prevents Google from harming me.
The European Court of Justice eventually overturned the ruling
Then why does any of this even matter if it got overturned?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I don't mean to be implying anything, so let me come right out and say it.
There is some sort of absolute moral standard that applies equally to everyone everywhere in the world.Yes, but as you have correctly identified, it shouldn't have been the French court's job to uphold that standard in the US. Not following the absolute moral standard is your prerogative.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
You may now return to arguing about the French.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It’s funny that’s downvoted as it is usually the argument from the right wing garage denizens whenever any right is mentioned, even something as fundamental as the right to live, that any rights only exist because power enforces them.
I have no idea what or who you're talking about.
I'm certainty in favor of the right to life. It bothers me that the US government is not using its power to enforce the right to life.
Just what I said, that rights only become meaningful as society agrees on and enforces them.
I'm not sure what you mean by rights "becoming meaningful." Rights exist independent of society, and you can judge a good government from a bad government by their willingness to protect the peoples' rights.
What do you make of the US government’s unwillingness to protect my right to be forgotten?
You don't have a right to be forgotten.
Who decreed that?
You? The US founding fathers? The same people who decreed every man is created equal, but thenmade the pigs more equal than othersfailed to realize that black people are men too? I don't think they were infallible.The Founding Fathers weren't infallible, but the one who endowed all men with the rights in the first place is.
But I wasn't even born back then!?
No. You weren't born when you were endowed with rights. That happened before you were born.
The Founders improperly applied the concept to black people and several other groups, which is one of the reasons that the insufficiently Scottish Enlightenment-based US Government circa 1800 is a worse government than the one we have today.
Nobody believes you do, not even the French. (If they did, they would have made the newspaper take the story down.)
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Yeah, rights do. But the RTBF isn't actually a right.
Yes it is. Now what are you going to do about that?
Try to convince others that you're wrong and that your ideas shouldn't be used to govern people?
What makes you think that it's a right?
If it was, wouldn't the newspaper have to take the actual story down?
That's for a court to decide, and it's been mentioned that there probably wasn't even a court case about it.
I posted a link to the case that set the precedent.
Besides that, one court's failure to uphold a right doesn't mean it's not a right.
Wait, are you arguing that the court should have told the newspaper to take the original article down?
Remember, all Google said was "The French Newspaper put this article on their website. Here's a link."
Natural laws does not give you the right to have the government force a third party to do something nice on your behalf.
What are natural laws and who is the arbiter of what are and aren't rights under natural law?
Rights under natural law are the things that government is prevented from doing so that they (or in certain cases, a third party) do not harm you.
The RTBF represents the government preventing third parties from taking an action because preventing them from taking the action would help you.
There's a distinction between "actively helps" and "fails to harm."
That's meaningless as you might as well put that in a different perspective. You're saying the government forces Google to help me, I'm saying the government prevents Google from harming me.
The absence of them helping you isn't them harming you. The RTBF isn't really to do with making people that remember you forget you. It's about preventing people from saying or writing things about you.
The European Court of Justice eventually overturned the ruling
Then why does any of this even matter if it got overturned?
I'm worried about the case where they try this again. There's plenty of people in this topic, for example, who think the ECJ ruled wrongly and that the French ruling should have applied in the US. Or maybe it's someone smaller who decides to censor for American customers based on what the French (or someone more nefarious) want.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The RTBF isn't really to do with making people that remember you forget you. It's about preventing people from saying or writing things about you.
I honestly thought it was about the ability to retract things you voluntarily submitted (e.g., remove all your PII and content from a site where you posted).
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But I wasn't even born back then!?
No. You weren't born when you were endowed with rights. That happened before you were born.
I originally wanted to phrase it as "you weren't even born", as you're the one claiming universal truths, but felt that if I make the joke about me being the one who endowed all men with rights you'd be less likely to miss it. Apparently not.
Nobody believes you do, not even the French. (If they did, they would have made the newspaper take the story down.)
Didn't you just say "rights exist independent of society"?
It seems your society just fails to protect the right to be forgotten.Yeah, rights do. But the RTBF isn't actually a right.
Yes it is. Now what are you going to do about that?
Try to convince others that you're wrong and that your ideas shouldn't be used to govern people?
What makes you think that it's a right?
I'm mostly trying to push that your idea of universal truths, which basically amount to "whatever the US considers a right", are not nearly as indisputable as you think.
Besides that, I do believe that mistakes of the past should at some point be "time served" and not define you forever. That's why juvenile records are expunged, for example. (I can only hope the same is true in the US, otherwise it's worse than I thought). That's also why shit like your "registered sex offender" lists (because someone urinated in public) are a truly horrible idea.
Say if I'm applying for a job, that one time I got drunk 30 years ago shouldn't be the first thing to pop up when you look for me, and that used to not be the case before the internet making everything accessible instantly, forever.Natural laws does not give you the right to have the government force a third party to do something nice on your behalf.
What are natural laws and who is the arbiter of what are and aren't rights under natural law?
Rights under natural law are the things that government is prevented from doing so that they (or in certain cases, a third party) do not harm you.
The RTBF represents the government preventing third parties from taking an action because preventing them from taking the action would help you.
There's a distinction between "actively helps" and "fails to harm."
That's meaningless as you might as well put that in a different perspective. You're saying the government forces Google to help me, I'm saying the government prevents Google from harming me.
The absence of them helping you isn't them harming you. The RTBF isn't really to do with making people that remember you forget you. It's about preventing people from saying or writing things about you.
What I'm saying is that you can put is as they (Google) are actively harming me, so your fundamental distinction doesn't really clear things up at all, since again it's just a matter of how you frame things.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The RTBF isn't really to do with making people that remember you forget you. It's about preventing people from saying or writing things about you.
I honestly thought it was about the ability to retract things you voluntarily submitted (e.g., remove all your PII and content from a site where you posted).
At least that is what the site linked above says.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
"registered sex offender" lists
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm mostly trying to push that your idea of universal truths, which basically amount to "whatever the US considers a right", are not nearly as indisputable as you think.
Fine. Then forget all the other stuff.
I've answered all the questions that I'm about to ask for you. But I'm interested in your answer to them. What do you think? I'll shut up and listen.
- What are rights? Where do they come from?
- Is there a difference between the government's obligations due to laws and its obligations due to rights?
- Is there a definitive, complete list of rights? If there isn't, is there some lower-level set of principles that can be used to figure out whether something is or is not a right?
- Are rights universal? Do they apply across cultures and across time?
- Are there any laws that the government should be prevented from making?
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
shit like your "registered sex offender" lists (because someone urinated in public)
I just wish that list only applied to violent crime (e.g. sexual assault). I can't even have consensual sex in public without worrying about getting put on that list!
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
What do you think? I'll shut up and listen.
Mods, the civilized salon is leaking.
Wait.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm mostly trying to push that your idea of universal truths, which basically amount to "whatever the US considers a right", are not nearly as indisputable as you think.
Fine. Then forget all the other stuff.
I've answered all the questions that I'm about to ask for you. But I'm interested in your answer to them. What do you think? I'll shut up and listen.
- What are rights? Where do they come from?
Rights are certain things that we, as a society, have come to the conclusion are "inalienable", although obviously none of them are. Or, rather, that they should be, from a shared ethical/moral point of view. That has been a long historical process, though. This common acceptance clearly hasn't been around forever. And also clearly, while people seem to agree on these rights in an abstract sense, the exact details what they mean are still being debated. (You're fighting against abortion, I'm fighting against capital punishment)
For you that might be because it's dictated by an imaginary entity, for me they are derived, among others, from basic philosophy like the "golden rule" and being for the greater good of everyone.- Is there a difference between the government's obligations due to laws and its obligations due to rights?
A government is only restricted by law / its constitution (and people not revolting), assuming it's democratic and restricted at all. Ideally, the constitution includes those rights, and even better makes it hard to impossible to change that aspect.
- Is there a definitive, complete list of rights? If there isn't, is there some lower-level set of principles that can be used to figure out whether something is or is not a right?
No, there is no complete list. Some have been evolved more recently, although arguably only as continuation / details of others. There probably are some philosophical principles to figure that out, but I can't quite describe them right now. Not everyone is going to agree on the principles, though, so you're not going to agree on the results, either.
- Are rights universal? Do they apply across cultures and across time?
Ideally, yes. In practice, no.
- Are there any laws that the government should be prevented from making?
Should? Yes, that's obvious. For example, killing the Jews should've been prevented. Capital punishment should also be prevented.
-
EDIT: double post. see below.
-
I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to think we are.
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
- What are rights? Where do they come from?
Rights are certain things that we, as a society, have come to the conclusion are "inalienable",.. Or, rather, that they should be, from a shared ethical/moral point of view.
- Are rights universal? Do they apply across cultures and across time?
Ideally, yes. In practice, no.
I lumped questions 1 and 4 together because the answers kind of affect each other.
If rights are decided as a consensus from the society's shared morals and ethics, it's likely that societies from different cultures and different times will come up with different rights. Even here, apparently, the EU has come up with The Right to be Forgotten.
If rights are supposed to be universal, then it seems to me that either the US is wrong for not implementing the Right to be Forgotten, or the EU is wrong for granting RTBF the status of "right."
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
You're fighting against abortion,
I'mwe're both fighting against capital punishment)See? I told you we have more in common than you think.
For you that might be because it's dictated by an imaginary entity, for me they are derived, among others, from basic philosophy like the "golden rule" and being for the greater good of everyone.
As far as governance goes, the question is really whether all rights are meant to apply to everyone equally. It sounds like you believe they come from Nature, rather than Nature's God (to steal a phrase from Jefferson.) That's not the largest difference in the world.
Also, the Golden Rule is in the Bible. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" It's a great rule, and I get why non-Christians have adopted it. But Jesus originally said it.
- Is there a difference between the government's obligations due to laws and its obligations due to rights?
A government is only restricted by law / its constitution (and people not revolting), assuming it's democratic and restricted at all. Ideally, the constitution includes those rights, and even better makes it hard to impossible to change that aspect.
When I wrote the question, I was thinking that government's obligations are by definition "ought" rather than "is." Of course there are tyrannical governments, which are out of the scope of the question. Ought the government treat obligations due to rights more carefully than obligations due to laws?
I agree with you that it's important for the parts of the Constitution that deal with rights to be hard to impossible to change.
- Is there a definitive, complete list of rights? If there isn't, is there some lower-level set of principles that can be used to figure out whether something is or is not a right?
No, there is no complete list. Some have been evolved more recently, although arguably only as continuation / details of others. There probably are some philosophical principles to figure that out, but I can't quite describe them right now. Not everyone is going to agree on the principles, though, so you're not going to agree on the results, either.
OK, I'll take that as an answer. Going forward, though, it might be an interesting thought experiment to think about why you believe in the rights that you believe in.
- Are there any laws that the government should be prevented from making?
Should? Yes, that's obvious. For example, killing the Jews should've been prevented....
I kind of meant more categorically, but OK.
Hitler was elected with democratic majorities and apparently had a consensus among his citizens. In a world where different societies come up with different conceptions of rights, what's wrong with a conception that says "Rights don't apply to Jews?"
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Also, the Golden Rule is in the Bible. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" It's a great rule, and I get why non-Christians have adopted it. But Jesus originally said it.
The ancient Egyptians would like to have a word with you.
From The Wiki
-
This post is deleted!
-
Ok, you really want a discussion about legal systems, so let's go on. I suppose some comparative legal history PhD students can mine a whole bunch of hilarious memes from here.
Law is very complicated thing with complex principles and lots of legacy and backward compatibility stuff that goes back centuries, even millennia. Who are we to judge? Software developers, who managed to get in the same mess in mere 50 years?
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Are the people who own Google entitled to
exercise the right of freedom of expression and information?
People who own Google are entitled, of course. More importantly, people who work at Google (and thus actually generate its output) are entitled too. But that does not automatically mean that Google as an entity is entitled to anything.
Actually, there is no such general rule at all: Organizations (companies&co) are separate legal entities and while they do have some rights, these rights are very different; in any case, they don't have any Human Rights (for example, they don't have a right to life).I see that you actually kinda admit that and try to add an argument: organization is just part of the people who own them. That is, however, such a weak argument that it would be laughed out of any court (even US court, I believe - at least in its generic form). It is true in some specific cases, when the court decides that imposing some limits on the organization would really limit rights of some specific person(s). In common law system (and its derivatives), this can eventually lead to more generic rules that are upheld as law - and this is called the "natural law" or "natural right" (that's the thing about common law). In roman legal tradition, it's always case-by-case, unless the law (made by lawmakers) define some more generic rule.
That's why Freedom of Press is, in European legal tradition, a separate thing from Freedom of Speech/Expression: it's basically just a rule saying that there are organizations whose purpose is to provide Expression of some natural people and infringing on their Expression would infringe the rights of these people. Note that the people are specifically not the owners (or rather, not just the owners)!
Of course, it's more complicated, because censorship was always a big thing, either political or moral (the famous English-French dichotomy). Also, slander/libel. So, to simplify the situation, not every organization is considered "Press". Google can very easily declare itself to be one, but (as other people said already) they choose to actually declare themselves "not Press", which makes it shielded from many litigations.
Of course, in this particular case, higher court decided that it's a moot point, because Freedom of Speech apply here anyway.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the key thing is that they [the French court] didn't apply it to an American-to-American transaction.
I found it.
Thanks. I much prefer talking about actual real cases, rather than abstract generalities, because while the former is, well, fact, the latter is too easily confused with feelz and what people think rather than reality. So let's talk about those.
The European Court of Justice eventually overturned the ruling, but the French court did rule that Google had to censor American search results.
Indeed. Google apparently explicitly put in place geoblocking, and the French court apparently said that wasn't enough and fined them, which lead Google to the ECJ.
But as you pointed out yourself, the ECJ overturned the French ruling. So we're effectively in the situation of a lower court that was overruled by a higher one and legally speaking, that means the lower court was wrong. The ECJ is the highest possible court in this case (I think), so that ruling here is final, and it says exactly what I did, i.e. that the French court can control French-to-American transactions but specifically not American-to-American.
I'll quote one paragraph of the ruling (
) that is IMO very relevant here:"However, it is not apparent from the legal texts that the EU legislature has struck such a balance as regards the scope of a de-referencing outside the EU, nor that it has chosen to confer a scope on the rights of individuals which would go beyond the territory of the Member States. Nor is it apparent from those texts that it would have intended to impose on an operator, such as Google, a de-referencing obligation which also concerns the national versions of its search engine that do not correspond to the Member States. What is more, EU law does not provide for cooperation instruments and mechanisms as regards the scope of a de-referencing outside the EU."
That's the ECJ very clearly saying "EU legislation only applies to what's happening inside the EU, and EU legislators never intended it differently, and the French court was wrong in saying so."
BTW, here's the ruling that said that newspapers can't be sued under RTTF but Google can.
That one is for a Spanish newspaper and court, so I can't say much about the lower court ruling because I don't know Spanish, nor obviously Spanish law (that I would understand). Reading the ECJ ruling (
), it would seem that the distinction that was made is basically what I hinted to in a previous post: that Google acts not as a content publisher but as an intermediary and that by doing so they are not covered by freedom of speech but by data collection rules (Google put themselves in this category in order to not be responsible for content they publish -- they don't really have any choice, given how the law is and their business model, but that's irrelevant, legally speaking). The newspaper is very much a content publisher (and is therefore responsible for that content not being libellous, defamatory etc.) and thus can keep saying freely what they want (i.e. keep the article). Google is a data collector and there are rules that allow a person to access/remove data collected on them, hence the ruling.So, yes, the court did allow the newspaper to keep the article but not Google, but they did so by following the legal framework in place, where Google specifically puts itself in a category where freedom of speech is irrelevant (because it's about data collection, not speech).
A somewhat similar analogy would be an accountant condemned for putting wrong numbers in a balance sheet, while a newspaper reporting those numbers would not be condemned. The issue is not that the accountant is deprived of his freedom of speech, the issue is that the accountant and the newspaper don't do the same thing, even though they end up showing the same numbers.
I'm not quite sure what your point was about this newspaper vs. Google ruling, apart from the fact that it's not how it would work in the US (and I obviously agree on that).
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Not sure what the EU's explanation of the mechanics of its laws has to do with whether it's actually a right versus just a law.
I wasn’t talking about that, but rather, offering an answer to your question of why a French court would order Google to remove links to a newspaper article but not order the newspaper to remove that article, which is what you’ve been using as an example for a few days now.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Also, the Golden Rule is in the Bible. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" It's a great rule, and I get why non-Christians have adopted it. But Jesus originally said it.
The ancient Egyptians would like to have a word with you.
From The Wiki
-
The argument was the cultural foundations of rights. The phrase "The Golden Rule" originally referred to Christ's formulation of the principle. That formulation, rather than one of other equivalent for formulations, is the one with which @topspin is likely familiar because the of how influential the New Testament is in Western culture.
-
So you're telling me the Ancient Egyptians followed the Golden Rule? They independently discovered one of the two most important rules in Christianity 2000 years before the birth of Christ? And in fact that the Golden Rule is "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition"?
That sounds a lot like there's a universal morality that applies to modern Westerners and Ancient Egyptians alike. Just so you know.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
So you're telling me the Ancient Egyptians followed the Golden Rule?
You'll find something very similar virtually everywhere. Those who decide that rules are for others and not them tend to end up being tyrants and often come to very sticky ends. Alas, not always, but the world is imperfect.
Mind you, you can't really say that Ancient Egypt is a totally independent ethical tradition to that of Christianity. The Egyptian ideas would have been circulating in the Mediterranean basin and through the Middle East for sure, and quite possibly wider. For proper comparison, you need to look at a much more independent culture such as that of ancient China, pre-Columbian America or the aboriginal peoples of Australia. Ideas can move around a lot more easily than genes…
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Ok, you really want a discussion about legal systems, so let's go on.
Sure do. Hey, just so I have a frame of reference, what country do you live in? I believe that this is the first time we've ever had an extended conversation.
Law is very complicated thing with complex principles... Who are we to judge?
We're the governed. Government is supposed to only happen with our consent, so we should figure out what we consent to and what we do not.
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Are the people who own Google entitled to
exercise the right of freedom of expression and information?
People who own Google are entitled, of course. More importantly, people who work at Google (and thus actually generate its output) are entitled too. But that does not automatically mean that Google as an entity is entitled to anything... I see that you actually kinda admit that and try to add an argument: organization is just part of the people who own them. That is, however, such a weak argument that it would be laughed out of any court (even US court, I believe - at least in its generic form).
You're wrong about how US law works, but I'm interested in the underlying principle. Why do Google's owners lose some of their rights by acting in a group rather than as individuals? How many people makes a big enough group for the government to try to take away their rights?
It is true in some specific cases, when the court decides that imposing some limits on the organization would really limit rights of some specific person(s). In common law system (and its derivatives), this can eventually lead to more generic rules that are upheld as law - and this is called the "natural law" or "natural right" (that's the thing about common law).
I can't speak to every common law jurisdiction, but at least in the US and British legal systems, this is called precedent. By contrast, natural laws and natural rights are the rights granted by God/Nature to all of mankind. Natural laws/rights preexist government.
That's why Freedom of Press is, in European legal tradition, a separate thing from Freedom of Speech/Expression: it's basically just a rule saying that there are organizations whose purpose is to provide Expression of some natural people and infringing on their Expression would infringe the rights of these people. Note that the people are specifically not the owners (or rather, not just the owners)!
This part is confusing. You're saying that Free Speech and Free Expression are the same, but that Freedom of the Press is different.
If Free Speech/Expression companies are "organizations whose purpose is to provide Expression of some natural people and infringing on their Expression would infringe the rights of these people", then what would you call a company that published a newspaper? A Free Press company? If so, how are the rights of the owners of a Free Speech company different than those of a Free Press company?
Also, I'm not quite tracking on what a Free Speech company actually is or does. Most companies that I'm familiar with that rely on Freedom of Expression make money by using Freedom of the Press rather than Freedom of Speech.
Can you give an example of a Free Speech company? Or a product produced by one?
Of course, it's more complicated, because censorship was always a big thing, either political or moral (the famous English-French dichotomy). Also, slander/libel. So, to simplify the situation, not every organization is considered "Press". Google can very easily declare itself to be one, but (as other people said already) they choose to actually declare themselves "not Press", which makes it shielded from many litigations.
The guy who said that was confused about American law. I'm not aware of anything happening with European law. (If you have some examples, I'd be more than willing to listen.)
Of course, in this particular case, higher court decided that it's a moot point, because Freedom of Speech apply here anyway.
No it didn't. The ECJ ruled that Google couldn't be made to censor American search results, but they still have to censor them in France. Yet the newspaper is not required to censor itself.
Why are these two cases different?
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Not sure what the EU's explanation of the mechanics of its laws has to do with whether it's actually a right versus just a law.
I wasn’t talking about that, but rather, offering an answer to your question of why a French court would order Google to remove links to a newspaper article but not order the newspaper to remove that article, which is what you’ve been using as an example for a few days now.
My argument is that "the right to be forgotten" isn't actually a right, but Freedom of the Press is. And since governments can't make laws that conflict with people's rights, the RTBF provision is a bad law.
Why are Google's owners not entitled to Freedom of the Press rights?
-
@dkf said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
So you're telling me the Ancient Egyptians followed the Golden Rule?
You'll find something very similar virtually everywhere. Those who decide that rules are for others and not them tend to end up being tyrants and often come to very sticky ends. Alas, not always, but the world is imperfect.
Mind you, you can't really say that Ancient Egypt is a totally independent ethical tradition to that of Christianity. The Egyptian ideas would have been circulating in the Mediterranean basin and through the Middle East for sure, and quite possibly wider. For proper comparison, you need to look at a much more independent culture such as that of ancient China, pre-Columbian America or the aboriginal peoples of Australia. Ideas can move around a lot more easily than genes…
Well given that this principle was also found in Ancient China, there's pretty strong evidence that The Golden Rule represents a universal morality. Right?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
No it didn't. The ECJ ruled that Google couldn't be made to censor American search results, but they still have to censor them in France. Yet the newspaper is not required to censor itself.
Why are these two cases different?
Because Google explicitly avail themselves of a law that says "if you don't want to be held responsible [under freedom of speech] of what you publish, then you have to follow different rules [that limit your freedom of speech]."
Google could very well claim freedom of speech for their content if they wished to, but then it would mean that all usual rules about public speech would apply to them, and they would be responsible for any libel, slander etc. that appears on their pages. That's how the law works. You can't both have your cake and eat it, and both say "I'm entitled to keep whatever content I want because freedom of speech", and "I'm not responsible for content that I show and that abuses that freedom."
Naked Security – Sophos News
