warning; controversial

[G+_George Kozi]

warning; controversial.

 

So, what of the little guy, Professor Jarvis?

 

I keep hearing Professor Jeff Jarvis  ranting about the right to be forgotten. Whenever I listen to him on this subject, I'm acutely aware that I'm listening to a journalist.

 

Not once I have heard him offer a solution for the real problem of something, say a youthful indiscretion, that in his world is meant to follow you your entire existence.  Even if you are Joe Nobody from Suburbia... No solution for the little guy... he should just suck it up and live with it.

 

Debts are paid, stuff gets old and irrelevant. Yes, public figures and people in power should be rigorously scrutinized, and always ask ourselves why they want stuff to be forgotten. But all those who are against this right, never seem to focus on the common man. The common man that just wants something that he already paid his debt for, or the embarrassing episode from college not to define him his entire life.

 

You are a smart man... so... What is your solution for that little common man, Professor Jarvis? I'm asking you to answer not as a journalist, but as a father and grandfather.

 

This thing has two sides to it, doesn't it? I would love to read an article you wrote from that other perspective.

[G+_Joe Morrison]

In all of the right to be forgotten cases, Google just reveals stuff on the internet.  They also very helpfully tell you where that information is located.  If it is no longer relevant, go to the source and have them remove or hide it.  Presto it no longer shows up in Google.  Stop trying to force secondary or tertiary liability for information on the internet.

[G+_John Vasquez]

Of course you can add a grandfather paradox. Little guy has right to be forgotten, gets to be " public figures and people in power should be rigorously scrutinized, and always ask ourselves why they want stuff to be forgotten" so how do you undo the forgotten part? If they had not been "forgotten" would they have achieved their position? 

[G+_George Kozi]

of course, there are a lot of facets to this. This right to be forgotten thing is not about removing stuff from the internet, but about linking someone's name to some stuff on the internet. 

 

nobody usually looks farther than the first page of search results about a name, unless they have a strong interest. This right to be forgotten is about what shows up first. 

 

If someone decides to run for public office, then it is public interest. So... Investigative journalism should do its job. And by the way, public interest and public curiosity are not the same thing.

[G+_Dave Kinnear]

There are many sides to this discussion. I believe that if you are the "common man," the "little guy," you are at the same disadvantage wrt the right to be forgotten as you are in so many other areas of life. You can't afford the best lawyers, the best doctors, etc.

 

But this discussion should not be about the little guy or the disparity between the have's and the have-not's. Instead, it should be centered on whether a search engine company (some would say an advertising company) should be put in charge of determining what I see and don't see when I make a search. We shouldn't deflect the conversation to a different topic.

 

Instead, I want this craziness of asking Google or Microsoft or other search engine folks to be censors and judges about what I should and shouldn't see based on someone's sensitivities to stop. There are other legal ways to get information expunged at the source - not the search engine.

 

For the case of a young person who "stupidly" posts pictures of themselves that they wish they hadn't, I say THEY are the ones that need to "suck it up" and live with it. I also believe that what will happen is that those of us seeing the "stupid post" will eventually learn to forgive. We will make allowances.

 

The right to be forgotten is itself going to go the way of the dodo birds and be forgotten. It was foisted upon us by an bunch of people who apparently have not sense of technology, how it's used and what a search engine really does.

 

Posted as a father and a grandfather. 

[G+_George Kozi]

"will eventually learn to forgive. We will make allowances" I'm glad you believe that.

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

 Sorry, you're still responsible for it.  Your "youthful indiscretion" does not trump my right to free speech.

 

I have a very long, public record of saying some very foolish things on the Internet if you Google my name and my aliases.  I have to live with those.  

[G+_Joe Morrison]

If you don't want your youthful indiscretions to show up in highly ranked google searches try doing something that will get you positive press.  Volunteer for charity and get your name quoted in your local paper for example.  I believe google tends to weight more recent information higher than old news.  Or change your address and appearance, unless you have a very unusual name it is pretty easy to say "That wasn't me, it was someone else with the same name".

[G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi]

The problem isn't the right to be forgotten. The problem is Google. Technology has to evolve to the point that relevance comes into play. Right now Google's search engine can't do what we all do, let things go. You may say that's a good thing but it's also a bad thing. It can't parse data based on relevance because relevance is gauged on frequency and "recency," if you will. Search for for the best laxative on Friday and long after you have "success" you'll be getting ads for prune juice, Metamucil, and X-Lax. Data is dumb and the handling of it is dumb. People make it relevant.

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

People do make it relevant.  If people stop caring so much about "youthful indiscretions", then Google's retention of them will be less relevant.  

[G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi]

Jeff Stevens True. But Google has work to do too. The more contextual their search the better it is for everyone. 

[G+_Jeff Stevens]

Joseph Polk  Totally with you on that.

[G+_George Kozi]

the argument that if you don't want the embarrassing thing to rize to the search result surface you should do lots of good things, is ridiculous.

 

People don't slow down and look at how clean the highway is, they slow down and stare at the accident.

[G+_Jeff Jarvis]

The solution is tolerance and the knowledge that we all made mistakes. 

[G+_George Kozi]

Jeff Jarvis thank you very much for responding. I am looking forward to reading your thoughts on how we get there. 

[G+_Damian Mongru]

Jeff Jarvis  Absolutely. If something is irrelevant, and is seen by a potential employer, they should realise it is irrelevant and act accordingly. It is up to the user to make sense of the information (tolerate it, empathise etc).

 

I am not sure how far down the tolerance road we are, though. My initial thought was that as everyone posts everything on social media sites, they will all understand that everyone has embarrassing photos or irrelevant information etc, If it is the same for everyone then it loses all its power. However, if reports of teenagers using a couple of accounts - one their public face, and the another for everything else - are true, it indicates they are better at concealing things, rather than having tolerance.

 

Joe Morrison  The whole nature of the case is that when you enter your name into Google, a 'profile' is built up to show relevant links. This makes Google a 'data controller' and therefore have the responsibilities of a data controller, one of which is to remove certain information upon request. The website itself is deemed 'media' and as such has journalistic and freedom of speech privileges and is allowed to publish the material.

 

John Vasquez  Absolutely, one of the many vague notions that makes the ruling unworkable.

 

Dave Kinnear  Isn't the nature of a search engine to make decisions on what you see? The right to be forgotten is just asking them to abide by another law.

 

George Kozi  It's almost as if you believe that doing the stupid thing is fine, but it is worse to be caught doing it. 

[G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi]

There's something to be said for growing up before social media.

[G+_George Kozi]

Last thought on this. People say that they want the pure Internet as a permanent record, and in the same breath they also say that if you want something permanently removed, you should go to the source, not to Google.

 

Can you see the irony?

 

Going to Google for this removes only the link to the source, leaving the source intact. Going to the source, removes the Internet record permanently. Wipes it from history. The right to be forgotten only asks Google "don't show that thing about me".

 

So... wich of the two options really messes with the Internet as a repository of information? Because let's be clear, as much as we like Google, Google is not the Internet.

 

The right to be forgotten removes the directions to that book on the shelf, going to the source burns the book.

[G+_Uncle Joe (Uncle Joe Hi]

George Kozi Yeah and I don't want the record gone. I think research etc is good. I think the issue is relevance and search engines simply aren't capable of that. Hopefully they will be be.

[G+_Damian Mongru]

I think in many cases it is seen through the US version of libel, which makes sense, if something is untrue it should be removed. There are laws that govern the nature of speech, and these should be adhered to on the Internet. This is not the case with the right to be forgotten, where things that are true can still be removed.

 

However, going to the website also brings it's own problems. For example, the data can easily be copied, what if the server housing the data is not under your jurisdiction. Deleting something from the Internet seems like a fools errand. Deleting the pointer to it that the majority of the people use seems achievable. There are a lot of disparaging remarks concerning the EU not understanding technology, when in reality, the aims of 'right to be forgotten' is not to remove it from the Internet.