This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Canterbury/International Human Rights Law (2014 S1)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Whole section sounds like a really contrived advertisement for this Oblivion software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.157.51 ( talk) 18:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the name of the man that the recent legal decision was decided for should be in this article. he is his own streisand effect. 108.94.3.58 ( talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Pablo Palazzi 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC) the mention of the argentinean references in this article are incorrect, it has nothing to do with the RTBF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloandrespalazzi ( talk • contribs)
Regarding the lead image, there is no evidence that the take down request was properly a "right to be forgotten" request. Costeja simply establishes that search engines are responsible for their links as data providers. The so-called "right to be forgotten" was in fact not established by the ruling and is just one of a number of grounds for requesting take downs.
It worries me that this is a so-called self-referential edit protecting Wikipedia's interests (as perceived by some and not necessarily excluding one of its founders). Needless to say I have no intention whatsoever of intervening, forewarned by others of the ruinous effect of intervening in such edits. However (hopefully), it cannot be harmful to point out the facts. RR 2014 ( talk) 01:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In the section on the U. S. A. there's reference to the Melvin v. Reid case, with a link to a Wikipedia page of that name - but that page is a redirect back to this page. Was there, and should there be, a page for this case, and if not, shouldn't the link be removed? Wocky ( talk) 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
Redirect with possibilities}}
and could one day become an article. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC).Google has removed hundreds of links of our website about corporate information. This information only relates to the business scope of company directors in the United Kingdom and Spain, and it's not considered personal information under the Data Protection Acts of the two countries. Fortune Magazine covered this story in October 2014 [1], and it was mentioned again in the Wall Street Journal blog [2] as a risk for investors. This is an example of using the Right to be Forgotten to remove information that could be considered relevant, such as a recent director appointment in a company. Google continues to remove URLs from our site. Is this information relevant for the article?
EA 999 ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
References
I've never tried to contribute, and I feel out of my depth here. Please advise.
First, I noticed various cosmetic flaws in the following text:
I was about to correct the flaws, but then I noticed that it was almost identical to its cited source [1]. I would have simply marked it with {{close paraphrasing}}, but the paraphrased source was unreliable, and was itself ripped from a copyrighted TechCrunch article. [2] Even after two very thin layers of paraphrasing, the Wikipedia version seems to infringe on AOL's copyright, though the writer may not have been aware.
I imagine the steps to take are to:
For now, I just deleted the text to avoid copyright issues.
Thank you, anyone, for helping! -- Josiahmcclellan07 ( talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Hi everyone, I was interested in making mention of how this movement is also gaining traction in Canada due to a recent legal decision in a case here. Some links that discuss it are here: http://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/44785 (Legal website which discusses case law) http://www.arma.org/r1/news/canadian-policy-brief/2017/02/08/canadian-court-opens-door-to-right-to-be-forgotten (Non-profit organization which deals with professional information management, and extendedly data and privacy, as well.) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/02/did-a-canadian-court-just-establish-a-new-right-to-be-forgotten/ (Michael Geist is a legal expert, with specific expertise in the area of technology and law.) 100937852S ( talk) 23:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This document mentions 'Google' 116 times. Now Google is a good example, but this feels a bit over the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.135.124 ( talk) 12:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
~~~~
). You might also wish to consider
creating an account, otherwise comments like the one above are likely to be ignored as non-constructive
soapboxing. Regards,
nagual
design 14:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Although an interesting story, as it is not related to "right to be forgotten" and also no verifiable source, I removed:
A recent court judgement in South Africa forcing a former employee of a company to update his LinkedIn profile also exemplified the question, if companies should have control over what we do on social media. “This was highlighted by the high court in Pretoria yesterday in the case of a city estate agent who was ordered to correct his employment history on professional social media site LinkedIn. The court gave Willem van der Schyff five days within which to remove the details of former employer Daniel Crous Auctioneers from his LinkedIn profile, as it was misleading. [1]
References
This is an awful article. It confuses and for some unknown reason fails to distinguish between personal behavior* (or images, facts) and private behavior (and images, facts, etc.). It describes the subject concept incorrectly, at least as far as what the European Commission has to say. I don't disagree that Freedom of Speech is in conflict with requiring "forgetting", but the major criticism - not present here! - is that historical behavior of a person is the BEST guide to future behavior. It is not up to the relevant jurisdiction whether or not any public behavior is "minor" or "insignificant" or "no longer relevant". That should be obvious. It is also simply obfuscatory to say that a person's 20 yr old (say) bankruptcy is or is not relevant to evaluate that person's character. Using that information to make a decision (whether it is to offer that person a job, a loan, or let him/her babysit your kids) depends on the type of decision AND the strength of the link between behavior X (then) and behavior Y (now). At least, that is a typical USA perspective, imho. (* it is also not the case that a person's professional behavior is "personal" and should be forgotten upon request.OTOH, what is public and private is much more difficult to untangle with today's on-line social media.) 98.21.221.175 ( talk) 16:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This section sounds like marketing and I think it should simply be removed. But I'll wait a bit in case it's more important than I realize right now.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This story probably needs to be worked into the article somehow, though I'm not the person to do it. — Mahāgaja · talk 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Canterbury/International Human Rights Law (2014 S1)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Whole section sounds like a really contrived advertisement for this Oblivion software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.144.157.51 ( talk) 18:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the name of the man that the recent legal decision was decided for should be in this article. he is his own streisand effect. 108.94.3.58 ( talk) 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Pablo Palazzi 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC) the mention of the argentinean references in this article are incorrect, it has nothing to do with the RTBF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloandrespalazzi ( talk • contribs)
Regarding the lead image, there is no evidence that the take down request was properly a "right to be forgotten" request. Costeja simply establishes that search engines are responsible for their links as data providers. The so-called "right to be forgotten" was in fact not established by the ruling and is just one of a number of grounds for requesting take downs.
It worries me that this is a so-called self-referential edit protecting Wikipedia's interests (as perceived by some and not necessarily excluding one of its founders). Needless to say I have no intention whatsoever of intervening, forewarned by others of the ruinous effect of intervening in such edits. However (hopefully), it cannot be harmful to point out the facts. RR 2014 ( talk) 01:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
In the section on the U. S. A. there's reference to the Melvin v. Reid case, with a link to a Wikipedia page of that name - but that page is a redirect back to this page. Was there, and should there be, a page for this case, and if not, shouldn't the link be removed? Wocky ( talk) 08:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
{{
Redirect with possibilities}}
and could one day become an article. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC).Google has removed hundreds of links of our website about corporate information. This information only relates to the business scope of company directors in the United Kingdom and Spain, and it's not considered personal information under the Data Protection Acts of the two countries. Fortune Magazine covered this story in October 2014 [1], and it was mentioned again in the Wall Street Journal blog [2] as a risk for investors. This is an example of using the Right to be Forgotten to remove information that could be considered relevant, such as a recent director appointment in a company. Google continues to remove URLs from our site. Is this information relevant for the article?
EA 999 ( talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
References
I've never tried to contribute, and I feel out of my depth here. Please advise.
First, I noticed various cosmetic flaws in the following text:
I was about to correct the flaws, but then I noticed that it was almost identical to its cited source [1]. I would have simply marked it with {{close paraphrasing}}, but the paraphrased source was unreliable, and was itself ripped from a copyrighted TechCrunch article. [2] Even after two very thin layers of paraphrasing, the Wikipedia version seems to infringe on AOL's copyright, though the writer may not have been aware.
I imagine the steps to take are to:
For now, I just deleted the text to avoid copyright issues.
Thank you, anyone, for helping! -- Josiahmcclellan07 ( talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
References
Hi everyone, I was interested in making mention of how this movement is also gaining traction in Canada due to a recent legal decision in a case here. Some links that discuss it are here: http://canliiconnects.org/en/commentaries/44785 (Legal website which discusses case law) http://www.arma.org/r1/news/canadian-policy-brief/2017/02/08/canadian-court-opens-door-to-right-to-be-forgotten (Non-profit organization which deals with professional information management, and extendedly data and privacy, as well.) http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2017/02/did-a-canadian-court-just-establish-a-new-right-to-be-forgotten/ (Michael Geist is a legal expert, with specific expertise in the area of technology and law.) 100937852S ( talk) 23:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
This document mentions 'Google' 116 times. Now Google is a good example, but this feels a bit over the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.135.124 ( talk) 12:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
~~~~
). You might also wish to consider
creating an account, otherwise comments like the one above are likely to be ignored as non-constructive
soapboxing. Regards,
nagual
design 14:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Although an interesting story, as it is not related to "right to be forgotten" and also no verifiable source, I removed:
A recent court judgement in South Africa forcing a former employee of a company to update his LinkedIn profile also exemplified the question, if companies should have control over what we do on social media. “This was highlighted by the high court in Pretoria yesterday in the case of a city estate agent who was ordered to correct his employment history on professional social media site LinkedIn. The court gave Willem van der Schyff five days within which to remove the details of former employer Daniel Crous Auctioneers from his LinkedIn profile, as it was misleading. [1]
References
This is an awful article. It confuses and for some unknown reason fails to distinguish between personal behavior* (or images, facts) and private behavior (and images, facts, etc.). It describes the subject concept incorrectly, at least as far as what the European Commission has to say. I don't disagree that Freedom of Speech is in conflict with requiring "forgetting", but the major criticism - not present here! - is that historical behavior of a person is the BEST guide to future behavior. It is not up to the relevant jurisdiction whether or not any public behavior is "minor" or "insignificant" or "no longer relevant". That should be obvious. It is also simply obfuscatory to say that a person's 20 yr old (say) bankruptcy is or is not relevant to evaluate that person's character. Using that information to make a decision (whether it is to offer that person a job, a loan, or let him/her babysit your kids) depends on the type of decision AND the strength of the link between behavior X (then) and behavior Y (now). At least, that is a typical USA perspective, imho. (* it is also not the case that a person's professional behavior is "personal" and should be forgotten upon request.OTOH, what is public and private is much more difficult to untangle with today's on-line social media.) 98.21.221.175 ( talk) 16:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This section sounds like marketing and I think it should simply be removed. But I'll wait a bit in case it's more important than I realize right now.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 18:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This story probably needs to be worked into the article somehow, though I'm not the person to do it. — Mahāgaja · talk 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)