Doesn't seem dangerous or journalistic at all here. In the UK at least the legal system is already aware and deals quite reasonably with the right to be forgotten. Has done for years.
After a certain period a crime is considered spent and you can not be required to reveal it - except in some very limited circumstances. You'd have to reveal spent crimes if you want to join the police or become a magistrate for instance. You might want senior politicians added on this list perhaps.
If you got a fine or a short prison sentence, the period is relatively short. A long prison sentence for a serious offence is never considered spent. I think there is something of a sliding scale of how long a sentence takes to expire.
I would want essentially the same from the right to be forgotten. A citizen should not have to see Google reminding potential employers of a minor or youth offence 20 years ago when the legal system feels it expired ages ago.
Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then?
>Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then?
Since you're familiar with it, I'm curious how the following situations are handled...
There was a famous rape case involving a Stanford student. His name is Brock Turner.
If you search directly on keywords "Brock Turner"[1], the first results will be his rape conviction. I think it's logical to assume the Right To Be Forgotten wants these search results directly associated with his name to be removed.
But what about a level of indirection? What about searching for "The Stanford Rapist"[2]. Those results are also about Brock Turner. Are those removed as well?
What about another level of indirection? If one searches images for keywords "mugshot criminology textbook"[3], Brock Turner's photos are the most prominent. Would those get removed too?
What if the victim writes a popular blogpost, "I was raped by Brock Turner and here's my story...etc...", would her article be removed from the google results? What takes precedence? The victim's free speech or the felon's censorship powers granted by Right To Be Forgotten?
> What about searching for "The Stanford Rapist"[2].[..] If one searches images for keywords [...]
Those would not be removed under the Right to be Forgotten as defined by the original verdict. The reasoning is that the individual is harmed most by people explicitly googling their name (i. e. recruiters, business partners, family etc). If you come to the article from the other side of the issue, it's far less likely that you're in a position of power vis-a-vis that person.
> What if the victim writes a popular blogpost,
Such an article would once again be subject to the Right to be Forgotten.
> What takes precedence? The victim's free speech or the felon's censorship powers granted by Right To Be Forgotten?
That's far too general a question to ask, and appears to be phrased with a certain outcome in mind.
Neither right is absolute. It all depends on the specific situation. It requires exactly the sort of balancing the judicial system is build for.
Well in the UK it would be based on sentence. I'm not sure of the usual severity of sentence for rape, but imprisonment is quite common and I think of a length to often never be spent. I think many would consider it a serious enough offence that you can't simply "move on" from it. Rape and murder probably should not be forgotten, bar room brawls at 19 probably should. The laws seem to try and have some awareness of that nuance.
A sentence of over 4 years prison, including suspended, would never be spent. Prison for six months would be considered spent after 2 years. However, sex offences are an exception covered by the sex offence register, which gives a different time line. 10 years or life I think, again depending on severity of sentence.
Thus he'd not be rehabilitated and forgotten by UK law until 2025 I think, so should not really be getting the right to be forgotten - it's too current.
The rehabilitation law itself covers insurance, employment, housing, media and so forth and has no awareness of any new media as it's from long before them. So it would solve the indirection via obfuscation: An old, spent, offence would be buried in some newspaper and court archives and probably only surface if someone was dedicated to digging into their background.
The EU right to be forgotten seems like a valiant, if perhaps a little clumsy, attempt to achieve a similar effect.
An interesting side note is that it is libellous to maliciously publish details of a spent conviction; truth is not a defence (though it is on the prosecution to prove that it was malicious, AFAIK).
It's my understanding that the EU right to be forgotten legislation places the onus on the search engines to do the delinking. It's the search engines that have forms to submit requests to, not BBC, CNN and so on. It's the search that provides the visibility.
I've no idea if they considered barrier to entry or relative size when drafting the law or built in any limitations. Of course until an engine reaches some level of popularity it's unlikely to receive many or any removal requests, so should remain manageable for them. If it were the individual sites every site would need a policy and takedown request, just like most have now added something for DMCA requests. Doesn't that just put the barrier to entry up for everyone publishing a site?
I think the EU is very aware that in the reality we live in, search engines are how people find stuff, not by looking through or searching directly on sites.
Thus, this is one of those times where the lawmakers actually looked at technology, and understood how it was used.
Also, making search engines responsible creates a far smaller surface area of contact than having every site that contains the content.
After a certain period a crime is considered spent and you can not be required to reveal it - except in some very limited circumstances. You'd have to reveal spent crimes if you want to join the police or become a magistrate for instance. You might want senior politicians added on this list perhaps.
If you got a fine or a short prison sentence, the period is relatively short. A long prison sentence for a serious offence is never considered spent. I think there is something of a sliding scale of how long a sentence takes to expire.
I would want essentially the same from the right to be forgotten. A citizen should not have to see Google reminding potential employers of a minor or youth offence 20 years ago when the legal system feels it expired ages ago.
Doesn't seem that complex to achieve either. So what would be the problem then?