I agree with you on the right to be forgotten. Yet technically it would make more sense to create special tagging which would upon request of the individual and through an mediation process involving a national agency supervising digital rights and privacy to have search engines provide a (legal) update tag which states the nature and scope of the update.
Google already has these tags in place when you "mouse over" the individual results. Now apply a semantic linked data process and any offending search result will yield this update. The key issue is that the individual involved will have to initiate an edit process. Thus we do NOT remove any results and do not change the past, we merely provide specific updates on possible offending results by the user. This removes the legal obligation from the search engine to do all the editing. The edits must be triggered by the individual in order to exercise his/her rights of privacy. This is in line with what we consider the trade off between the right of the individual to privacy and the right of the public to have access to information. We live in interesting times because the European Union just adopted the following; The Council adopts the Guidelines on Freedom of Expression online-offline Press release <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142550.pdf> EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline Document <http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/142549.pdf> These show the other side of the coin Milton Ponson GSM: +297 747 8280 PO Box 1154, Oranjestad Aruba, Dutch Caribbean Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. On Saturday, May 17, 2014 12:40 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_d...@yahoo.com> wrote: -------------------------------------------- On Sat, 5/17/14, Michael Brunnbauer <bru...@netestate.de> wrote: > But there is a way out of the verdict and it involves novel use of linked data and semantic web technologies. I very much doubt that triples can help here. ===================== I agree, Michael, but would further like to point something out which is relavent to legal proceedings in the current age, and for evermore: Sometime in the late 1800's the ability of a practitioner of Natural Science disciplines to read everything ever published in that discipline was exceeded - long before any of us were born. When did this happen with the Law ? Never, of course, the Law is bemoaned as "behind the times". When did this happen with Computer Science ? Never, of course, all Computer Science is "cutting edge". "Contempt of Microbiology" is not an offense because Microbiology is not a legal argument. On the other hand, reckless handling of a pathogen contrary to accepted standards is an offense. The scope of the Search Engine business is Computer Science. To repeatedly make laughable legal argument about the Search Engine Business "in vacuo" is contempt for the Court and contempt for us all. Cheers, Gannon
