SW rant time
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@computerchip said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@brrabill said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said
Oh, I missed that. How odd to want to close it after a few years.
Some people can only take so much.
But you just... don't log in. it implies that he's been logging in and lurking for two years?
You know how some people are paranoid. I was looking through old posts here last night and saw where Dennis Kelly as asking to remove his account here. I don't know exactly what paranoid people think will happen if they leave their account open though.
The right to be forgotten means we don't get to ask those kinds of questions though.
If I chose to close my account, that data has to go away at some point. Not immediately, but at some point.
Closing accounts does not imply the right to be forgotten. Closing the account is the right to be disconnected.
There is a very tight correlation between the two.
What correlation? I see none.
The correlation of "oh I'm closing my account, everything I've ever posted will disappear (eventually)"
That correlation does not exist, in any way. It's simply not a thing.
Source - examples of where content should be removed
I see nothing in there related to the association you are discussing. Please provide the quote to where deleting an account is legally associated to the removal of content referring to that user.
-
The "right to be forgotten" is problematic because, for example, what if ML takes a screenshot of SW and posts it here. You expect that deleting the account on SW should automatically trigger a removal of content here?
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller "Those in favour of the right to be forgotten cite its necessity due to issues such as revenge porn sites appearing in search engine listings for a person's name, as well as instances of these results referencing petty crimes individuals may have committed many years ago. The central concern here being, these results can unduly play a prominent role in a person's online presence almost indefinitely if not removed."
First paragraph, reference 6.
Definitely not related. Nothing in there says anything about what we are discussing.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
The "right to be forgotten" is problematic because, for example, what if ML takes a screenshot of SW and posts it here. You expect that deleting the account on SW should automatically trigger a removal of content here?
Yes and no. If there is value in a post (say I cross posted before my post was deleted by a mod) and I wanted it here.
If I posted information regarding my employer by mistake, and deleted that information. Someone has the ability to go into google cache and retrieve that information, for a duration.
Eventually though that information gets deleted.
No, it does not. Not if people quote it, for example. Your understanding of the Internet and storage systems is fundamentally incorrect, leading you to odd conclusions.
-
For example, the WayBack machine does not cache "for a time". Nor does SW or ML. And Google's cache is not temporary, it just might not all be displayed.
-
Also, important to understand, is that Europe's Right to be Forgotten violates the US' Freedom of Speech. The two cannot exist in the same jurisdiction. So you have a fundamental issue with the law that you are quoting - it applies only to servers in Europe and only under certain conditions and has nothing to do with the Internet or how things work.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
"There is opposition to further recognition of the right to be forgotten in the United States as commentators argue that it will contravene the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, or will constitute censorship, thus potentially breaching peoples' constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in the United States Constitution.[66] These criticisms are consistent with the proposal that the only information that can be removed by user's request is content that they themselves uploaded.[clarification needed][66][67]"
And?
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
"There is opposition to further recognition of the right to be forgotten in the United States as commentators argue that it will contravene the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, or will constitute censorship, thus potentially breaching peoples' constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression in the United States Constitution.[66] These criticisms are consistent with the proposal that the only information that can be removed by user's request is content that they themselves uploaded.[clarification needed][66][67]"
And?
The correlation of "I'm closing my account" would then tie into "and I expect everything I've ever posted here to go away with it"
Nope, you've provided absolutely nothing of that nature. It is not logical, not implied, and not stated... anywhere.
-
And my point was that it is exactly the opposite. Closing an account without removing the contents guarantees that you have voluntarily given up the ability to provide proof of ownership of that content.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
And my point was that it is exactly the opposite. Closing an account without removing the contents guarantees that you have voluntarily given up the ability to provide proof of ownership of that content.
You are missing my point then.
Let's look at this from another perspective.
Joe has an email account on Yahoo, and he's sick and tired of the security breaches etc. So he opts to close his account.
Should Yahoo be allowed to retain all of his email that he's sent / received / forward forever?
Absolutely.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
Is the onus on Joe to go in and delete everything that is in the account before closing the account to ensure nothing of the email exists?
Obviously there is.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
Or would Joe be rightful in thinking that if I'm ending a relationship with a service provider, that all of the content I supplied / received from that supplier should also go away?
It would be insane for him to think such a crazy, illogical thing. Especially when we aren't talking about email, but talking about published works. The right to be forgotten doesn't apply to things like email, but to things like public posts. Like this one.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
And my point was that it is exactly the opposite. Closing an account without removing the contents guarantees that you have voluntarily given up the ability to provide proof of ownership of that content.
You are missing my point then.
Let's look at this from another perspective.
Joe has an email account on Yahoo, and he's sick and tired of the security breaches etc. So he opts to close his account.
Should Yahoo be allowed to retain all of his email that he's sent / received / forward forever?
Absolutely.
Why do you think so?
Because, logic. Common sense.
