(note any comments here are entirely my own personal opinion)
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> The ECJ said the
> right "to be forgotten" applies when the data aggregated "appear to be
> inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation
> to the purpose
Chris writes:
> I think there's a philosophical issue about "privacy" here. As far as I can
> see the ECJ interprets "privacy" as "the right to enjoy a private life", and
> sees any party holding a significant amount of data about a private
> individual without good reason as a potential infringem
>
> Whatever "the right to be forgotten" may turn out to be, it's not
> about publication of previously unpublished information. Ergo, it's
> not about "invasion of privacy," broadly speaking. The opinion makes
> clear that one can publish true, accurate, already-published
> information and neverth
??? writes:
>On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
>> a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
>> accurate public data that happens to be old.
>>
>
>There is nothing in the judgement about er
On 04/06/2014 00:06, Nathan wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, ??? wrote:
On 03/06/2014 22:35, Nathan wrote:
Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is
the
main feature of the article?
How about this 8 yo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Emmanuel_of_
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, ??? wrote:
> On 03/06/2014 22:35, Nathan wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is
>> the
>> main feature of the article?
>>
>
> How about this 8 yo?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Emmanuel_of_Belgium#Biography
>
On 03/06/2014 22:35, Nathan wrote:
Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is the
main feature of the article?
How about this 8 yo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Emmanuel_of_Belgium#Biography
What about these other kids?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_L
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, ??? wrote:
> On 03/06/2014 12:53, Mark wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/14, 10:55 PM, ??? wrote:
>>
>>> There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention
>>> at school for not doing their homework at junior high.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that the kind of information yo
On 03/06/2014 12:53, Mark wrote:
On 6/2/14, 10:55 PM, ??? wrote:
There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention
at school for not doing their homework at junior high.
Isn't that the kind of information you would in fact expect to find in a
biography of any kind of public
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over Wikimedia or specific users
> (presumably only those users directly involved in creating or curating the
> content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past (e.g. with
> the DCRI and frw
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> > Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater
> degree
> > than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
> > "superinjunctions"?
>
> First, WMF op
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Chris Keating
wrote:
>>
>> > I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
>> > personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when
>> > you
>> > set out to avoid acquiring it.
>>
>> On this point I must disagree.
WMF is
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree
> than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
> "superinjunctions"?
First, WMF operates globally, and while I took pains as general
counsel, just a
On 6/2/14, 10:55 PM, ??? wrote:
There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention
at school for not doing their homework at junior high.
Isn't that the kind of information you would in fact expect to find in a
biography of any kind of public figure? If I were reading a biogr
On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:
Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
accurate public data that happens to be old.
There is nothing in the judgement about erasing "true, acaccurate pu
>
>
> > I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
> > personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when you
> > set out to avoid acquiring it.
>
> On this point I must disagree.
>
I'd be interested to hear why :-)
I think also though that if edito
Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree
than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
"superinjunctions"?
On Jun 2, 2014 2:15 PM, "Mike Godwin" wrote:
> Chris writes:
>
> > If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a card-file index of
Chris writes:
> If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a card-file index of
> newspaper cuttings (or any other kind of database) including personal
> details about a group of individuals, you are becoming both a "data
> processor" and "data controller".
I think that's the plain meaning o
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Chris writes:
>
> > As I understand it, the "right to be forgotten" will only affect the
> > discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
> >
> > So if we rely on a source which says that person X did Y many years ago,
> > and
Chris writes:
> As I understand it, the "right to be forgotten" will only affect the
> discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
>
> So if we rely on a source which says that person X did Y many years ago,
> and X succeeds in invoking their "right to be forgotten", then the sou
20 matches
Mail list logo
