5
edits
Difference between revisions of "User talk:Polo sensei"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Right to be forgotten: new section
Polo sensei (talk | contribs) (→Real-life Examples of Governmental Tyranny: new section) |
Polo sensei (talk | contribs) (→Right to be forgotten: new section) |
||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
Sources: Discussions and articles that used to be contained at Jimmy Stephans's websites http://www.nnwebmasters.com/ and http://www.nnportal.com/ and other forums about models Jimmy Stephans's "Photographer's Corner" column dated September 14, 2006 at http://www.trueteenbabes.com/news.html "A Model Prisoner: Cops thought they'd busted the largest child-porn ring in Colorado history. But that's not how the case developed." by Eric Dexheimer, in Westword (August 14, 2003), http://www.westword.com/issues/2003-08-14/news/feature.html "Jury Reaches Verdict In James Grady Case: True Teen Babes Site Operator Found Not Guilty" by ABC 7 News (March 13, 2003), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2038535/detail.html "Child-porn Probe Reaches To Seminole" by Gary Taylor, in Orlando Sentinel (April 11, 2002), http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-04-11/news/0204110111_1_seminole-arapahoe-county-girls "Website featuring girls in lingerie at heart of new law" by Bay News 9 (July 3, 2008), http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/7/2/362036.html "Florida No Haven For Teen Exploitation" by The Tampa Tribune (July 6, 2008), http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/06/bz-florida-no-haven-for-teen-exploitation/ | Sources: Discussions and articles that used to be contained at Jimmy Stephans's websites http://www.nnwebmasters.com/ and http://www.nnportal.com/ and other forums about models Jimmy Stephans's "Photographer's Corner" column dated September 14, 2006 at http://www.trueteenbabes.com/news.html "A Model Prisoner: Cops thought they'd busted the largest child-porn ring in Colorado history. But that's not how the case developed." by Eric Dexheimer, in Westword (August 14, 2003), http://www.westword.com/issues/2003-08-14/news/feature.html "Jury Reaches Verdict In James Grady Case: True Teen Babes Site Operator Found Not Guilty" by ABC 7 News (March 13, 2003), http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/2038535/detail.html "Child-porn Probe Reaches To Seminole" by Gary Taylor, in Orlando Sentinel (April 11, 2002), http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2002-04-11/news/0204110111_1_seminole-arapahoe-county-girls "Website featuring girls in lingerie at heart of new law" by Bay News 9 (July 3, 2008), http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/7/2/362036.html "Florida No Haven For Teen Exploitation" by The Tampa Tribune (July 6, 2008), http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jul/06/bz-florida-no-haven-for-teen-exploitation/ | ||
== Right to be forgotten == | |||
The right to be forgotten is a concept that has been discussed and put into practice in the European Union (EU) (most notably France) and Argentina in recent years. The issue has arisen from the desires of some individuals to "determine the development of his life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past". | |||
In the European Union | |||
In Article 12 of the Directive 95/46/EC the EU gave a legal base to internet protection for individuals. In 2012 the European Commission disclosed a draft European Data Protection Regulation to supersede the directive, which includes specific protection in the right to be forgotten in Article 17. | |||
In May 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled against Google in Google v González, a case brought by a Spanish man, Mario Costeja González, who requested the removal of a link to a digitized 1998 article in La Vanguardia newspaper about an auction for his foreclosed home, for a debt that he had subsequently paid. He initially attempted to have the article removed by complaining to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, which rejected the claim on the grounds that it was lawful and accurate, but accepted a complaint against Google and asked Google to remove the results. Google sued in the Spanish Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) which referred a series of questions to the European Court of Justice. The court ruled in Costeja that search engines are responsible for the content they point to and thus, Google was required to comply with EU data privacy laws. It began compliance on 30 May 2014 during which it received 12,000 requests to have personal details removed from its search engine. | |||
In July 2014, in the early stages of Google's effort to comply with the court ruling, legal experts questioned whether Google's widely publicised delistings of a number of news articles violated the UK and EU Data Protection Directive, since in implementing the Directive, Google is required to weigh the damage to the person making the request against any public interest in the information being available. Google indeed acknowledged that some of its search result removals, affecting articles that were of public interest, were incorrect, and reinstated the links a week later. Commentators like Charles Arthur, technology editor of The Guardian, and Andrew Orlowski of The Register noted that Google is not required to comply with removal requests at all, as it can refer requests to the information commissioner in the relevant country for a decision weighing the respective merits of public interest and individual rights. | |||