Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
RTBF is pointless and needs to die
RTBF Actus - La référence de l'actualité belge et internationale - Accueil - RTBF Actus
Toute l'actualité belge et internationale sur RTBF.be : retrouvez toutes les news info, sport, culture, musique et bien plus encore et accédez aux chaînes TV, radio et marques de la RTBF.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
God-given right
Found the point where you’re going off the rails.
Found the point where you shouldn't have a say in deciding what laws should be created. Rights have to preexist government for them to mean anything at all.
People have rights because some people hold power over others and the former allow the latter to do certain things. That’s it. The only question is how a society arrives at who has the right to give rights to others.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
God-given right
Found the point where you’re going off the rails.
Found the point where you shouldn't have a say in deciding what laws should be created.
Excluding atheists from lawmaking process? Sounds like 1st Amendment violation to me.
Rights have to preexist government for them to mean anything at all.
Thomas Hobbes would like to have a word with you.
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
RTBF is pointless and needs to die
RTBF Actus - La référence de l'actualité belge et internationale - Accueil - RTBF Actus
Toute l'actualité belge et internationale sur RTBF.be : retrouvez toutes les news info, sport, culture, musique et bien plus encore et accédez aux chaînes TV, radio et marques de la RTBF.
I agree with @Mason_Wheeler
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
God-given right
Found the point where you’re going off the rails.
Found the point where you shouldn't have a say in deciding what laws should be created.
Excluding atheists from lawmaking process? Sounds like 1st Amendment violation to me.
Not quite.
The fact that rights preexist government and constrain government is a foundational principle of the American system of government. You can't make good decisions about American government unless you believe that.
How you reached that conclusion is different. There are all sorts of ways to come to it, some with God playing a prominent role, others less so. The important part is that the foundational principles of American governance are foundational and if you're not on board with them, you're unlikely to make good decisions about governance.
This is why legal systems with from countries with different foundational principles shouldn't be able to make judgements that are binding on Americans.
Rights have to preexist government for them to mean anything at all.
Thomas Hobbes would like to have a word with you.
I'm not an expert on Hobbes, but I thought his thing was that there isn't such a thing as rights because rights wouldn't be respected in a state of nature.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
If you don't want your
misdeedsLiveJournal posts from when you were 15 years old to show up on future Google search results... don'tcommitwrite any!
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
If you don't want your
misdeedsLiveJournal posts from when you were 15 years old to show up on future Google search results... don'tcommitwrite any!
Shit, I've posted things on this forum that I'm deeply ashamed of.
Not the weird sex stuff, by the way, but when the site was young and I was an IT n00b.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Rights have to preexist government for them to mean anything at all.
Thomas Hobbes would like to have a word with you.
I'm not an expert on Hobbes, but I thought his thing was that there isn't such a thing as rights because rights wouldn't be respected in a state of nature.
His thing is that rights are artificially made up by humans by the power of social contract when they organize a government. I believe that's @Gurth's stance too. Also mine, for that matter. For example, the right to representation didn't exist until Americans said it does, and the right to equal treatment regardless of race didn't exist until the civil rights movement said it does - and now the existence of both these rights is an indisputable fact, at least in the USA, and at least until The People decide otherwise.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
If you don't want your
misdeedsLiveJournal posts from when you were 15 years old to show up on future Google search results... don'tcommitwrite any!
Shit, I've posted things on this forum that I'm deeply ashamed of.
Not the weird sex stuff, by the way, but when the site was young and I was an IT n00b.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Rights have to preexist government for them to mean anything at all.
Thomas Hobbes would like to have a word with you.
I'm not an expert on Hobbes, but I thought his thing was that there isn't such a thing as rights because rights wouldn't be respected in a state of nature.
His thing is that rights are artificially made up by humans by the power of social contract when they organize a government. I believe that's @Gurth's stance too. Also mine, for that matter. For example, the right to representation didn't exist until Americans said it does, and the right to equal treatment regardless of race didn't exist until the civil rights movement said it does - and now the existence of both these rights is an indisputable fact, at least in the USA, and at least until The People decide otherwise.
I'd rather think of rights as axiomatic, rather than God-given. They're foundational rules that we've agreed are beyond question, and you can derive more from them or reduce down to them, and if you contradict one your entire argument is invalidated (i.e. the law is found unconstitutional and overturned).
-
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them, and what happens when the majority of the country suddenly finds them wrong (as happened time and time again in practice, and will certainly continue to happen in the future)? And what happens when people get different ideas about what a given right actually means (to some, bodily autonomy is about abortion at will; to others, it's about refusing vaccines)?
-
As for
....@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them,
The framers of the US Constitution.
and what happens when the majority of the country suddenly finds them wrong (as happened time and time again in practice, and will certainly continue to happen in the future)?
Constitutional amendments, but with the parties as entrenched as they are, it's hard to imagine bipartisan support for anything.
And what happens when people get different ideas about what a given right actually means (to some, bodily autonomy is about abortion at will; to others, it's about refusing vaccines)?
Usually the US Supreme Court has the final say about how these things should be interpreted, which is why the lifetime appointment of SCOTUS justices is such an impactful decision.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
As for
....@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them,
The framers of the US Constitution.
So are the current citizens of the US still bound by those agreements to not question them?
and what happens when the majority of the country suddenly finds them wrong (as happened time and time again in practice, and will certainly continue to happen in the future)?
Constitutional amendments, but with the parties as entrenched as they are, it's hard to imagine bipartisan support for anything.
For something so foundational and beyond question, you're strangely comfortable with having it abolished.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
For something so foundational and beyond question, you're strangely comfortable with having it abolished.
TBH I'm not comfortable at all with the way the government is functioning. I feel like it's on fire, at the moment, and it scares the hell out of me.
Let's post pictures of cats instead.
-
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
For something so foundational and beyond question, you're strangely comfortable with having it abolished.
TBH I'm not comfortable at all with the way the government is functioning. I feel like it's on fire, at the moment, and it scares the hell out of me.
And that's exactly why I believe "everything is a subject to change, and I mean everything" is a far superior approach than "there are some things that absolutely must stay the same no matter what".
Let's post pictures of cats instead.
But let's make it appropriate!
Translation
Andy, it won't work, it's going to collapse!
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
As for
....@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them,
The framers of the US Constitution.
So are the current citizens of the US still bound by those agreements to not question them?
There have been three kinds of changes to Constitution, from its framing to today.
-
Changes to the structure of government. We want to make it hard for politicans to change the rules to grant themselves more power, so we put those changes behind the kinds of uber-majorities that Constitutional Amendments require. As long as the government depends on the consent of the governed, this isn't something that implicates rights. (If we were to pass a Constitutional Amendment that repealed the three branches of government and replaced them with a UK-style Parliment, that wouldn't necessarily violate anyone's rights.)
-
Formal recognitions that rights apply to additional people. Generally (but not universally) speaking, these rights were being denied to some people in some places, and the Constitutional Amendment fixed it.
-
Prohibition, which was a shitty outlier and not something we're going to do again.
Except for Prohibition, no amendment has taken away anyone's rights.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm not an expert on Hobbes
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
As for
....@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them,
The framers of the US Constitution.
So are the current citizens of the US still bound by those agreements to not question them?
There have been three kinds of changes to Constitution
That's not what I'm asking about. Are there any fundamental rights that the Founding Fathers agreed to never question that current day citizens are still bound to never question? In other words, are there any kinds of amendments that are (or ought to be) forbidden to be made, no matter how much popular and political support they have?
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Except for Prohibition, no amendment has taken away anyone's rights.
This is trivially proven false but we're not in garage so I'll keep the proof to myself.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
As for
....@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them,
The framers of the US Constitution.
So are the current citizens of the US still bound by those agreements to not question them?
There have been three kinds of changes to Constitution
That's not what I'm asking about. Are there any fundamental rights that the Founding Fathers agreed to never question that current day citizens are still bound to never question? In other words, are there any kinds of amendments that are (or ought to be) forbidden to be made, no matter how much popular and political support they have?
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Except for Prohibition, no amendment has taken away anyone's rights.
This is trivially proven false but we're not in garage so I'll keep the proof to myself.
In some bizarro world where the correct approvals happen, we could amend the Constitution to turn the US into an oppressive dictatorship via one or more amendments. We could install a king. We could change the amendment process so the President could change it via executive orders. We could establish a state church and/or outlaw atheism. Etc. As far as I know, technically speaking, there are no limits. Assuming you got whatever approvals are needed.
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
People have rights because some people hold power over others and the former allow the latter to do certain things. That’s it. The only question is how a society arrives at who has the right to give rights to others.
Someone needs to read more Locke.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
...and why is that a problem? If you don't want your misdeeds to show up on future Google search results... don't commit any!
I’m sure you’re also one of those “if you don’t have anything to hide you have nothing to fear” people who are fine with having the world install a camera in their bathroom.
I realize the US justice system is not particularly concerned with sane concepts like rehabilitation, but what do you think purging criminal records is for?
Filed under: God forgives, I don’t
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
God-given right
Found the point where you’re going off the rails.
Found the point where you shouldn't have a say in deciding what laws should be created. Rights have to preexist government for them to mean anything at all.
People have rights because some people hold power over others and the former allow the latter to do certain things. That’s it. The only question is how a society arrives at who has the right to give rights to others.
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. There are no intrinsic, fundamental human rights. Which is technically correct but usually irrelevant side tracking, because everyone knows what “human rights” mean in normal context.
-
@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. There are no intrinsic, fundamental human rights. Which is technically correct but usually irrelevant side tracking, because everyone knows what “human rights” mean in normal context.
Perhaps the most basic right of all is the right to be recognised as being a human being. All the really bad trouble really starts with the denial of that basic matter. Other rights (right to live, right to free speech, etc.) tend to come from that basic one and the principle of reciprocity (“if I want this right for myself, I must also grant it to other human beings”).
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
There's a very fine line between a jurisdiction adding too much extra jurisdiction-specific rules and allowing the other jurisdiction to imperialize you with their shitty laws.
Just make them break into sub-companies according to jurisdiction.
Now each sub-company would just need to comply with the law of one jurisdiction, and things would be clearer as each jurisdiction would just create 2 sets of laws - one for the body within EU boundary, and one for how it should react to request to the mother company outside the jurisdiction. (Say, mother company have no right to request to move data out of the jurisdiction)
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
As for
....@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error the problem is, who exactly is this "we" that agreed to never question them,
The framers of the US Constitution.
So are the current citizens of the US still bound by those agreements to not question them?
There have been three kinds of changes to Constitution
That's not what I'm asking about. Are there any fundamental rights that the Founding Fathers agreed to never question that current day citizens are still bound to never question? In other words, are there any kinds of amendments that are (or ought to be) forbidden to be made, no matter how much popular and political support they have?
The rights according to the Founders are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Which is Jefferson paraphrasing Locke's statement of the fundamental rights as life, liberty, and property. The intellectual underpinnings of the American Revolution and the government it eventually established ran through Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment.
I suspect you meant the Framers, though, who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a little less than 20 years later. The rights they enumerated as the Bill of Rights (and the ones they didn't) are fundamental rights that are still binding today.
Those rights themselves have not expanded much. The people to which they apply has expanded. (The thirteenth amendment, for example, doesn't grant a new right so much as it takes an existing right that white people had and also grant the same right to black people.)
But the Founders' principles are actually more relevant to your question. The United States has had two governments during its existence: the one specified by the Articles of Confederation and the one specified by the Constitution. Both were established under Scottish Enlightenment principles.
There are people who want to replace the Scottish Enlightenment ideals with ideals from some other source, like the French Enlightenment or Postmodernism or stuff like that. To my reading, the Constitution is incompatible with another philosophical underpinning, and in order to change it, the entire Constitution would need to be repealed and replaced.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Except for Prohibition, no amendment has taken away anyone's rights.
This is trivially proven false but we're not in garage so I'll keep the proof to myself.
I kind of shot from the hip on this, but going back and looking at the list, nothing stood out to me. If you're interested in this conversation, please make the garage topic.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I suspect you meant the Framers
I don't really care for that distinction much. I just saw someone in this topic saying that there are some foundational rules that people have agreed that are beyond question, and I'm challenging that notion.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Except for Prohibition, no amendment has taken away anyone's rights.
This is trivially proven false but we're not in garage so I'll keep the proof to myself.
I kind of shot from the hip on this, but going back and looking at the list, nothing stood out to me. If you're interested in this conversation, please make the garage topic.
Nah I'm fine. It's just the same old "granting a right to not be exploited inherently takes away the former exploiter's right to exploit others" argument nobody wants to hear.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I suspect you meant the Framers
I don't really care for that distinction much. I just saw someone in this topic saying that there are some foundational rules that people have agreed that are beyond question, and I'm challenging that notion.
Ok, well there's your answer. If the foundational philosophy isn't the Scottish Enlightenment, your views of governance aren't compatible with the Constitution as it currently stands. Life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness? That's all foundational.
-
@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.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear I don't question what the foundations were. This is for historians to determine, and historians have proved beyond any doubt that it was indeed Enlightenment philosophy (I'm not educated enough to know particular branches, so I'm going to trust your statement that it was Scottish).
I'm more focused on the latter half, that these rules are to be never questioned. Right now, I'm unconvinced that such agreements were ever made, be it by the Founders or by That Other Old Group That I Momentarily Forgot The Name Of, Some Synonym Of Writers I Think - anyway, if there was something that absolutely isn't subject to change, they would mention it somewhere, don't you think?
And even if either of those groups have indeed made such agreement, I'm unconvinced their consent also means the consent of all future generations.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm more focused on the latter half, that these rules are to be never questioned. Right now, I'm unconvinced that such agreements were ever made, be it by the Founders or by That Other Old Group That I Momentarily Forgot The Name Of, Some Synonym Of Writers I Think - anyway, if there was something that absolutely isn't subject to change, they would mention it somewhere, don't you think?
Well, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, which laid out the foundational principles held by the US.
He wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The fact that all men have rights which were given to them by God rather than the government implies that the government can't take the rights away and that that prohibition is beyond the reach of government.
The Declaration was unanimously agreed to by the representatives of the 13 Colonies.
And even if either of those groups have indeed made such agreement, I'm unconvinced their consent also means the consent of all future generations.
Well, the Founders' understanding of rights being granted by God was literal, which means it's binding on the government for all time (or at least as long as God keeps endowing people with rights.) You don't have to consent to gravity either.
But more to the point, if you were to put it on the ballot, I doubt that 33% of Americans today would vote against the principles Jefferson wrote into the Declaration. In modern times, it has the consent of the governed.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear that kinda debunks what I said, yes - according to Founders or Whatever, there are indeed some rights that cannot be taken away. But it also kinda confirms what I said - if those rights come from God, then indeed there never was any agreement to never question them. As you put it, I never consented to gravity - and neither have I consented to the Congress borrowing money on behalf of the country.
Also, the problem with Jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is that 2 of the 3 are so general and vague that it's basically a non-statement. It's easy to make Democrats and Republicans agree that people must be equal - it's much harder to make them agree what it actually means. Hell, even the details of the "life" part are hotly debated, and I don't just mean abortion.
-
@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.
That you think the US government is not enforcing the right to life shows that even this is probably universally agreed on in an abstract sense but not what it means concretely. (I also don’t think the US government does, but I wager it’s for different reasons than yours)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear that kinda debunks what I said, yes - according to Founders or Whatever, there are indeed some rights that cannot be taken away. But it also kinda confirms what I said - if those rights come from God, then indeed there never was any agreement to never question them. As you put it, I never consented to gravity - and neither have I consented to the Congress borrowing money on behalf of the country.
Well, Congress not borrowing money isn't a right, so that's how that happens. 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 plurality.
I don't understand what you mean about there not having been an agreement. What the Founders did was found a government based on principles that they all agreed to. It is possible to found a government on some other set of principles than "rights preexist government," but those weren't the principles the founders picked.
Also, the problem with Jefferson's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is that 2 of the 3 are so general and vague that it's basically a non-statement. It's easy to make Democrats and Republicans agree that people must be equal - it's much harder to make them agree what it actually means. Hell, even the details of the "life" part are hotly debated, and I don't just mean abortion.
Well for one thing, it's two out of four. Jefferson's contemporaries would have recognized the appeal to Locke and the Scottish Enlightenment, and thus mentally substituted in "the right to property" as well.
As far as what the rights are, the document (The Declaration of Independence) went on to list almost 40 specific infringements on rights that King George's government was imposing on the colonies, so you can kind of figure it out from that. But also, Jefferson was not supposed to be writing a governing document.
When the Articles of Confederation proved to be inadequate, the Framers wrote the Constitution, which was in fact a legitimate governing document, and thus has more specific examples of rights listed.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@error said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
For something so foundational and beyond question, you're strangely comfortable with having it abolished.
TBH I'm not comfortable at all with the way the government is functioning. I feel like it's on fire, at the moment, and it scares the hell out of me.
And that's exactly why I believe "everything is a subject to change, and I mean everything" is a far superior approach than "there are some things that absolutely must stay the same no matter what".
Let's post pictures of cats instead.
But let's make it appropriate!
Translation
Andy, it won't work, it's going to collapse!
-
@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.
That you think the US government is not enforcing the right to life shows that even this is probably universally agreed on in an abstract sense but not what it means concretely. (I also don’t think the US government does, but I wager it’s for different reasons than yours)
I probably have a broader conception of "the right to life" than you're giving me credit for.
-
@dfdub said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But the Right to be Forgotten stuff is an infringement on the right to freedom of the press
Debatable. Freedom of press has a higher priority than the "right to be forgotten" to European courts, so stories about public figures or newsworthy stories won't be delisted. The potentially problematic part is that it's now up to a court to decide whether an old newspaper article is still relevant.
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press as understood in the US, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I'm not convinced by your idea of rights-before-government when it comes to the US, but that's not the point here. However when developing that idea you said yourself that different governments are based on different principles, and this is the case here, to the French court it apparently looked as if Google wasn't covered by freedom of the press as defined by French law (probably b/c I don't think French law actually has a legal principle called like this...). Saying that it wouldn't have flown in the US isn't really saying much, apart from the fact that different countries have different law systems (
).Other than that, it's back to the question of whether a country can impose its laws to stuff happening outside of its borders, and the only way to interpret "can" in that sentence is not as "does it have the moral right", because that's meaningless since different countries use (hopefully no more than slightly) different moral frameworks, but rather "does it have the physical means to do it." There is nothing "right" or "wrong" in international "law", because there is no "international law", just a juxtaposition of national laws that are all more or less logical from their own standpoint.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Instead, they would much prefer the fiction of being simply a neutral conduit for what other people publish and if it's something bad, that's on those other people. This doesn't stop them from exercising editiorial discretion in any case, because what's the point of being a dystopian megacorp if you don't get to pick and choose which rules apply to you?
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
A French court made Google take down a link to a newspaper article published in a French newspaper under RTBF. (The facts in the article were not in dispute.) Under Freedom of the Press as understood in the US, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I'm not convinced by your idea of rights-before-government when it comes to the US, but that's not the point here.
It kind of is. If rights are a thing that exist without government, and that governments are established by people to protect their rights, then you can judge one government as better or worse than another government by the degree to which the two governments protect people's rights.
However when developing that idea you said yourself that different governments are based on different principles,
That's an is statement rather than an ought statement. All governments ought to be founded on Scottish Enlightenment principles like "rights preexist government."
to the French court it apparently looked as if Google wasn't covered by freedom of the press as defined by French law (probably b/c I don't think French law actually has a legal principle called like this...).
My understanding of the French ruling and law in this area is that the concept they call "freedom of the press" is much narrower. In France, there's a group called "The Press" that the government is not allowed to interfere with. "The Press" is made up of traditional media companies. Newspapers, magazines, radio, TV and the like.
Because Google's search engine isn't "The Press" by that standard, the French court ruled that Google was not entitled to freedom of the press protections.
The newspaper that published the original article is a newspaper. They were allowed to keep their archived story online because they are "The Press."
Meanwhile, a country founded on the fact that "all men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" would recognize that Freedom of the Press is supposed to attach to individuals, not groups, and thus that anyone who's publishing something is exercising their Freedom of the Press. (Note, though, that if a group is made up of individuals, those individuals don't lose their rights by joining the group.)
Other than that, it's back to the question of whether a country can impose its laws to stuff happening outside of its borders, and the only way to interpret "can" in that sentence is not as "does it have the moral right", because that's meaningless since different countries use (hopefully no more than slightly) different moral frameworks, but rather "does it have the physical means to do it."
- Sure, different countries are based on different moral frameworks, but anyone who uses a different moral framework than me is wrong. (You're saying the same thing as me here, except that I'm using an emoji.)
- It's absurd to claim people can't criticize foreign court decisions for being morally wrong. Does that extend to domestic courts also?
- The very fact that the French conception of rights is flawed is the reason I don't want it applied in American-to-American transactions. I think it's wrong to apply it in French-to-French transactions as well, but I guess I'm not willing to take up arms and liberate you guys over it.
- Sure, different countries are based on different moral frameworks, but anyone who uses a different moral framework than me is wrong.
-
@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?
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
If Google is a platform, then they are subject to platform-specific laws and don't get the protections afforded to publishers. If they are a publisher, they get the publisher-specific protections, but lose the platform-specific ones (such as Section 230 of the CDA or 17 U.S.C. § 512).
Of course, that's just the US legal angle, and we're talking about operating in Europe. The same principle holds in both cases, however.
-
@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?
I don't recall, Senator.
-
@GOG 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?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG 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?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
I didn't start using the term, @GuyWhoKilledBear did. I'm just pointing out that "Freedom of the Press" only applies to "the Press" - and Google isn't "the Press", by choice (they will argue in court, that they aren't). If you mean it as "Freedom of Speech", then just use "Freedom of Speech", yes?
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG 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?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
I didn't start using the term, @GuyWhoKilledBear did. I'm just pointing out that "Freedom of the Press" only applies to "the Press" - and Google isn't "the Press", by choice (they will argue in court, that they aren't). If you mean it as "Freedom of Speech", then just use "Freedom of Speech", yes?
"Freedom of the Press" is "Freedom of Speech" but written down, not spoken. Like the difference between slander and libel (which may be English language / law distinctions, just like speech / press are American distinctions).
-
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG 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?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
I didn't start using the term, @GuyWhoKilledBear did. I'm just pointing out that "Freedom of the Press" only applies to "the Press" - and Google isn't "the Press", by choice (they will argue in court, that they aren't). If you mean it as "Freedom of Speech", then just use "Freedom of Speech", yes?
"Freedom of the Press" is "Freedom of Speech" but written down, not spoken. Like the difference between slander and libel (which may be English language / law distinctions, just like speech / press are American distinctions).
Not quite, but that's besides the point. The point is Google isn't "speaking" - and will argue vehemently that they aren't "speaking" - because that would make them liable for their speech and they don't want that.
-
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@boomzilla said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GOG 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?:
Under Freedom of the Press, the people who own Google have the right to publish whatever they would like.
I don't think that's actually true, because Google isn't "the Press" and they would very much like to keep it that way.
It is true. "The Press" means distributing written stuff (e.g., from a printing press).
Being "the Press" means editorial responsibility and editorial responsibility means legal liability for what you publish. Google don't want none of that, no siree!
Publisher vs platform is a separate issue, but neither would be affected by someone distributing some speech that was public information that was true. Copyright could in theory be a reason, BUT PLEASE GOD LET'S NOT GO THERE.
Copyright is one thing. The Communications Decency Act is another thing entirely...
Glib one-liners aside, the publisher/platform distinction is important for the purposes of this conversation, because you can't claim publisher-specific entitlements ("Freedom of the Press") for someone who is not a publisher - which is what I was referring to.
Stop saying "Freedom of the Press" then, because that's confusing the issue (from the US perspective, of course).
I didn't start using the term, @GuyWhoKilledBear did. I'm just pointing out that "Freedom of the Press" only applies to "the Press" - and Google isn't "the Press", by choice (they will argue in court, that they aren't). If you mean it as "Freedom of Speech", then just use "Freedom of Speech", yes?
"Freedom of the Press" is "Freedom of Speech" but written down, not spoken. Like the difference between slander and libel (which may be English language / law distinctions, just like speech / press are American distinctions).
Not quite, but that's besides the point.
Your Eurosplaining is amusing, but wrong.
The point is Google isn't "speaking" - and will argue vehemently that they aren't "speaking" - because that would make them liable for their speech and they don't want that.
Uh...they are speaking. Just in written form. It's a particular kind of speech, true, and there are caveats about it. But it's speech in an American context.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
It kind of is. If rights are a thing that exist without government, and that governments are established by people to protect their rights, then you can judge one government as better or worse than another government by the degree to which the two governments protect people's rights.
That kind of explains the absurd "universal jurisdiction is only OK if the USA does it" standpoint some people seem to be defending here.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
but I guess I'm not willing to take up arms and
liberate you guys over it.... and the vast majority of people this side of the Pond will be very happy about your restraint.
And with that I'll have restrain myself and remove myself from this discussion. It's impossible to keep it out of
territory, That whole "I know the Universal Truth and everyone who disagrees with me must be forced to Enlightenment" attitude just riles me up way too much.
Calvin and Hobbes - Wikipedia
