US Need 'a right to be forgotten' - Similar to the EU?

Data Privacy is a key issue going forward with ever more parts of everyone's lives being recorded / posted in digital medium.

There is a law EU-GDPR to uphold a persons"right to be forgotten" ... and not be hindered, followed, hauntedtheir whole life for some a stupid drunk quote or picture they posted toFaceBook when they were 17 years old.

This appears to be especially important and significant in this age of total"PC-think" control over ordinary citizens lives, and the retro-retribution the excessive PC-think crowd inflicts.


What do you think? Should the US strengthen data privacy laws?
Should those laws include the 'right to be forgotten'?

Elaborate your thoughts to substantiate your position.

The problem is that American political culture will always, and in every circumstance put the desires of the corporations over the will of the people. They own your data like they own your representatives, so the most you can do is bend over. I don't see Congress -- especially a Republican one -- using the dirty R-word: Regulation to restrict the behavior of their corporate donors. Enjoy all that "freedom".

eohrnberger said:

Data Privacy is a key issue going forward with ever more parts of everyone's lives being recorded / posted in digital medium.

There is a law EU-GDPR to uphold a persons"right to be forgotten" ... and not be hindered, followed, hauntedtheir whole life for some a stupid drunk quote or picture they posted toFaceBook when they were 17 years old.

This appears to be especially important and significant in this age of total"PC-think" control over ordinary citizens lives, and the retro-retribution the excessive PC-think crowd inflicts.

[h=3]Joy Reid will stay on air at MSNBC amid outcry over alleged anti-gay ...[/h]
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/joy-reid-anti-gay-posts-550213
Apr 25, 2018 - Reid says her blog was hacked to include the posts. ... MSNBC host Joy Reid first came under scrutiny late last year over similar remarks on ... say straight sex is gross but the reverse is considered to be patently homophobic.
​

What do you think? Should the US strengthen data privacy laws?
Should those laws include the 'right to be forgotten'?

Elaborate your thoughts to substantiate your position.

Click to expand...

Data is just ones and zeroes on the internet. You can make any law you like, but somewhere there will ALWAYS be a copy ready to be brought forward. There is no way to delete EVERY instance of someone's embarrassing moment caught and uploaded to the internet. That is just fact. Hence why people say "what goes on the internet, stays on the internet."

eohrnberger said:

Data Privacy is a key issue going forward with ever more parts of everyone's lives being recorded / posted in digital medium.

There is a law EU-GDPR to uphold a persons"right to be forgotten" ... and not be hindered, followed, hauntedtheir whole life for some a stupid drunk quote or picture they posted toFaceBook when they were 17 years old.

This appears to be especially important and significant in this age of total"PC-think" control over ordinary citizens lives, and the retro-retribution the excessive PC-think crowd inflicts.

Joy Reid will stay on air at MSNBC amid outcry over alleged anti-gay ...


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/joy-reid-anti-gay-posts-550213
Apr 25, 2018 - Reid says her blog was hacked to include the posts. ... MSNBC host Joy Reid first came under scrutiny late last year over similar remarks on ... say straight sex is gross but the reverse is considered to be patently homophobic.
​

What do you think? Should the US strengthen data privacy laws?
Should those laws include the 'right to be forgotten'?

Elaborate your thoughts to substantiate your position.

Click to expand...

Should the US strengthen data privacy laws?

Should those laws include the 'right to be forgotten'?

I would like to say yes but have to say no.

When you post something on website that not owned by you the post is no longer owned by you. It is the property of the oener if the website.

Overall it is up to the individual to control what they put on the internet. Self censor yourself

Praxas said:

Data is just ones and zeroes on the internet. You can make any law you like, but somewhere there will ALWAYS be a copy ready to be brought forward. There is no way to delete EVERY instance of someone's embarrassing moment caught and uploaded to the internet. That is just fact. Hence why people say "what goes on the internet, stays on the internet."

Click to expand...

In business there are data retention periods, after which the old data is expunged.

Similar regulations could be instituted for ISPs and other service provides, such as Google, Facebook, etc. unless explicitly exempted by people. I wouldn't have to have people's Facebook family photo albums automatically erased, for example.

Further, giving people the ability to delete their old posts (including removal from backups - or effectively the inability to restore them after their data retention period as expired) would address the issue.

From a technical stand point, data retention and expunging is a well known and well understood issue and can be made a requirement, if so desired.

There is no technical reason that data retention and expunging can't be made a requirement and implemented.

Xelor said:

Should the US strengthen data privacy laws?

Maybe...depends on nature of the so-called strengthening.​

Click to expand...

Fair. What constitutes the general idea of 'strengthen data privacy laws' would need to be detailed.

Should those laws include the 'right to be forgotten'?

No. Can one stop another from following them down the street or wherever else one goes in public? No. There's nothing one can do about a person monitoring one provided the person doesn't actively threaten one or doesn't do one actual harm. One shouldn't then expect anything different about one's digital movements?
​

Click to expand...

Yes, I read your essay. It seems that your position is 'Either give up your right to privacy, or be a digital Luddite', and I think that there's room for a third position, such as the EU has acknowledged through legislation, which maintains the model of how things have been even in the digital realm. This would be one that I would happen to agree with.

eohrnberger said:

Fair. What constitutes the general idea of 'strengthen data privacy laws' would need to be detailed.

Click to expand...

We agree on that. Cool.

eohrnberger said:

In the pre-digital era, public comments and behavior may very well be observed by other people, and as time passes their memories of such fade. With everyone sharing public comments, pictures and video in the digital realm, there is no such natural and normal fading as time passes.

Click to expand...

• Fading --> In pre-digital times, some folks public comments faded and some didn't. Most speakers/writers who had something meritorious to say, often enough have had their thoughts endure. From Bible authors, to Cicero and Plato, to myriad Medieval and Renaissance writers and speakers, to our Founding Fathers and so on. Visit the Vatican Archives, the Library of Congress, Mount Vernon or Monticello, and other repositories of the thoughts of people from famous figures to "random" individuals such as a simple Civil War soldier whose letters to his superiors have been retained in the drawer somewhere in a museum. That you, I and others don't go seeking those expositions doesn't mean it's not there.
• Not fading --> Digital technology increases, at least for now, the likelihood that a greater quantity of individuals' public expressions will be preserved. That's it.

eohrnberger said:

Is it reasonable to have people haunted by their previous positions, statements, posts, pictures and video until the end of their days? Without the option to remove them after a period of time? Mind you I'm not talking about official public records, which should be maintained, I'm talking about everything else.

This is quite a change from how things have been, to how things appear to be going forward.

Click to expand...

Yes, unless and until one recants one's prior position. Just as people before the Digital Age exercised the prudence not to publicly say things for which they didn't care to be held accountable, so too is that dictum applicable today. If one is "man" enough to say "it" in public, then one must bear the burden of having said "it" in public. That doesn't mean one cannot change one's mind. It means that one must have enough integrity to own both one's prior thoughts and one's revision of them.

One cannot undo his past, but one can alter his future. By my principles, one is duty bound to seize both.

eohrnberger said:

Yes, I read your essay.

Click to expand...

Thank you for doing so.

eohrnberger said:

It seems that your position is 'Either give up your right to privacy, or be a digital Luddite', and I think that there's room for a third position, such as the EU has acknowledged through legislation, which maintains the model of how things have been even in the digital realm. This would be one that I would happen to agree with.

Click to expand...

So what I'm saying is keep to oneself that which embarrassess one or that one'd rather not have others discover. That the Internet is a public space should surprise nobody. Be cognizant of the fact that it is so and comport oneself accordingly.


To wit, there is nothing I'll, in association with my name, put in writing (or in clicks) anywhere on the Internet that I wouldn't too say in person if called expressly to do so. There are, of course, some things I might express, say, on DP that I'd just as soon not be called to discuss in association with my name; those are things about which, in "the real world," I keep mum. Nonetheless, were I expressly queried about them, again in "the real world," I'd have no choice but to articulate them every bit as clearly as I might here. Then there are things I share, but only non-digitally. Lastly, like everyone, I have thoughts that I don't care to have anyone discover, and, as I've suggested above, I don't share them with anyone. I don't because I know that only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

So, yes, develop connections. Share, and do so on the web if needs be, but think before sharing.

Xelor said:

"I've got a stele we can use. Who wants to do me?"
"A regrettable choice of words," muttered Magnus.”
-- Cassandra Clare, City of Ashes
​

We agree on that. Cool.

• Fading --> In pre-digital times, some folks public comments faded and some didn't. Most speakers/writers who had something meritorious to say, often enough have had their thoughts endure. From Bible authors, to Cicero and Plato, to myriad Medieval and Renaissance writers and speakers, to our Founding Fathers and so on. Visit the Vatican Archives, the Library of Congress, Mount Vernon or Monticello, and other repositories of the thoughts of people from famous figures to "random" individuals such as a simple Civil War soldier whose letters to his superiors have been retained in the drawer somewhere in a museum. That you, I and others don't go seeking those expositions doesn't mean it's not there.
• Not fading --> Digital technology increases, at least for now, the likelihood that a greater quantity of individuals' public expressions will be preserved. That's it.

Click to expand...

Yes, my point exactly. Either we allow for expunging (fading of digital memory), or we all have to modify the response to long ago posted expressions that we don't like, which is exactly what Reed, and I'm sure others, was excoriated for.

Yes, unless and until one recants one's prior position.

Click to expand...

Didn't help Reed. She retracted and was still excoriated, unfairly, if you ask me.

Just as people before the Digital Age exercised the prudence not to publicly say things for which they didn't care to be held accountable, so too is that dictum applicable today. If one is "man" enough to say "it" in public, then one must bear the burden of having said "it" in public. That doesn't mean one cannot change one's mind. It means that one must have enough integrity to own both one's prior thoughts and one's revision of them.

One cannot undo his past, but one can alter his future. By my principles, one is duty bound to seize both.


Thank you for doing so.



So what I'm saying is keep to oneself that which embarrassess one or that one'd rather not have others discover. That the Internet is a public space should surprise nobody. Be cognizant of the fact that it is so and comport oneself accordingly.

Click to expand...

Just as going back to the days of the nation's founding and finding fault for people having slaves, which was normal and accepted at that time, now only to find was normal then, now out of favor, and then a mod mentality for tearing stuff and those people down, how would one predict what the future social mores and accepted behaviors and positions be in the future will be? Only to find ones self being torn down in present day.

To wit, there is nothing I'll, in association with my name, put in writing (or in clicks) anywhere on the Internet that I wouldn't too say in person if called expressly to do so. There are, of course, some things I might express, say, on DP that I'd just as soon not be called to discuss in association with my name; those are things about which, in "the real world," I keep mum. Nonetheless, were I expressly queried about them, again in "the real world," I'd have no choice but to articulate them every bit as clearly as I might here. Then there are things I share, but only non-digitally. Lastly, like everyone, I have thoughts that I don't care to have anyone discover, and, as I've suggested above, I don't share them with anyone. I don't because I know that only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead.

Click to expand...

Not quite secrets, but allowing things to fade from memory. Not knowing what might become objectionable in the future, keeping mum would end up keeping silent, a chilling effect on free speech, if you ask me.

So, yes, develop connections. Share, and do so on the web if needs be, but think before sharing.

Click to expand...

But of course. Even so, you won't avoid the shifting of acceptable norms, as pointed out.

There was a long hard time when I kept far from me the remembrance of what I had thrown away when I was quite ignorant of its worth.
-- Charles Dickens, Great Expectations​

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Yes, my point exactly. Either we allow for expunging (fading of digital memory), or we all have to modify the response to long ago posted expressions that we don't like, which is exactly what Reed, and I'm sure others, was excoriated for.

Click to expand...

No, just no. There is no expunging or modifying of one's prior remarks. For better or worse, one made them. That cannot be changed.

What one can do is recant and attest to no longer being of the mind one once was. That's all one can do.

eohrnberger said:

Didn't help Reed. She retracted and was still excoriated, unfairly, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

I see what the rubric article from Politico reports she said in response to her former remarks having been resurrected. She didn't renounce them and the ideas they described. It's quite clear that she's not apologized for having espoused reprehensible notions; she apologized for disappointing people. Let's be clear. "I'm sorry that I upset/disappointed you" isn't the same as "I'm sorry for boorishly having said/done X or Y." The former is lame. Yes, Reid's statement is the start of an apology, but it's incomplete, and anyone seeing it knows as much. Because it's incomplete, receivers of the apology will not take it as sincere; accordingly, it's no surprise Reid's apology didn't do her much good.

If one is going to recant, one must do so expressly as part of one's apology. For example (I haven't read Reid's blog posts, so I'm winging it below):
That -- unequivocally owning the entirety of one's thoughts and actions; thoughts because the words aren't really the problem -- is how one delivers a sincere and complete apology, which is the only kind that really does one any good. Naturally, after submitting one's apology and abjurement, one must then not repeat the failing, for the instant one repeats the mistake, it'll be clear one is merely well practiced at the art of the apology rather than sincerely remorseful.

Having made plenty of mistakes in my life and apologized for them, I view Reid's apology (as presented in Politico) as insincere. It strikes me as a CYA apology more than anything else....something she issued out of necessity, not out of genuine remorse.
(continued in post 11 due to character limit)

(Continued from post 10)

eohrnberger said:

Just as going back to the days of the nation's founding and finding fault for people having slaves, which was normal and accepted at that time, now only to find was normal then, now out of favor, and then a mod mentality for tearing stuff and those people down, how would one predict what the future social mores and accepted behaviors and positions be in the future will be? Only to find ones self being torn down in present day.

Click to expand...

Why are you bringing up the thoughts and deeds of long dead people? Mine is a not a "sins of the father" (or similarly themed) argument. Reid's remarks are contemporary. While the culture may have changed somewhat since she made them, I doubt it has changed as much as is implicit in the temporal context of your example.

eohrnberger said:

Not quite secrets, but allowing things to fade from memory. Not knowing what might become objectionable in the future, keeping mum would end up keeping silent, a chilling effect on free speech, if you ask me.

But of course. Even so, you won't avoid the shifting of acceptable norms, as pointed out.

Click to expand...

What? Are you truly advocating for forbearing people spouting off at the mouth merely because they can? If you are, let me be clear, I'm not ever going to concur with such a notion. Consider what one wants to say and the scope of its implications. Accurately express what one truly thinks/feels. If one has a change of heart, own the former and new position, apologizing if the former position was and is reprehensible.

• Change from one political party to another --> That's not something to apologize for. It's just a change that one must own.
• Change from being a boor to being "civilized" --> Having been boorish is something for which one needs to apologize.

One can transform, but one cannot do so until one owns the fact of what one was before.

Xelor said:

No, just no. There is no expunging or modifying of one's prior remarks. For better or worse, one made them. That cannot be changed.

What one can do is recant and attest to no longer being of the mind one once was. That's all one can do.

Click to expand...

As we see free speech die. Part of free speech is the right of that speech to fade. I'm sorry that you don't see that.

If all of live in the digital world is going to be recorded as if one was under oath, you expect any frank and honest exchanges to take place?
No.
Only guarded exchanges will take place. That's not very free, now, is it? Freedom is also the freedom to be forgotten.

We aren't going to agree, as you appear to believe that everything in digital life is essentially under oath, and I don't. :shrug:

I see what the rubric article from Politico reports she said in response to her former remarks having been resurrected. She didn't renounce them and the ideas they described.

“This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized."
-- Joy Reid​

It's quite clear that she's not apologized for having espoused reprehensible notions; she apologized for disappointing people. Let's be clear. "I'm sorry that I upset/disappointed you" isn't the same as "I'm sorry for boorishly having said/done X or Y." The former is lame. Yes, Reid's statement is the start of an apology, but it's incomplete, and anyone seeing it knows as much. Because it's incomplete, receivers of the apology will not take it as sincere; accordingly, it's no surprise Reid's apology didn't do her much good.

If one is going to recant, one must do so expressly as part of one's apology. For example (I haven't read Reid's blog posts, so I'm winging it below):

Please allow me to apologize for having in the past held and expressed reprobate notions about XYZ and for having presumptuously extrapolated to others, writ large, concordance with those views. It was hypocritical, disrespectful, imprudent and crass of me to deign to be a spokesperson for how straight people view men kissing. It was irrational of me to convince myself that my anecdotal observations coincide with those the larger community of heterosexual Americans, particularly my fellow progressives, embrace, to say nothing have having explicitly imputed as much to them.

When I made the remarks, my own views about homosexuality were still immature, thus ill considered, and I regret having had the gall to articulate them. Between then and now, a host of experiences have effected a change in my views. Not only do I harbor no animus toward members of the LGBTQ community, I am chagrined that I ever did. I let you down and I unfairly aspersed my LGBTQ brethren. I'm sorry for both that and for the thoughts I held, as well as for having aired them before I'd fully considered them and their implications. I hope you will accept my apology and forgive me.​

That -- unequivocally owning the entirety of one's thoughts and actions; thoughts because the words aren't really the problem -- is how one delivers a sincere and complete apology, which is the only kind that really does one any good. Naturally, after submitting one's apology and abjurement, one must then not repeat the failing, for the instant one repeats the mistake, it'll be clear one is merely well practiced at the art of the apology rather than sincerely remorseful.

Having made plenty of mistakes in my life and apologized for them, I view Reid's apology (as presented in Politico) as insincere. It strikes me as a CYA apology more than anything else....something she issued out of necessity, not out of genuine remorse.

The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.
-- Plato, Apology​

(continued in post 11 due to character limit)

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

(Continued from post 10)


Why are you bringing up the thoughts and deeds of long dead people? Mine is a not a "sins of the father" (or similarly themed) argument. Reid's remarks are contemporary. While the culture may have changed somewhat since she made them, I doubt it has changed as much as is implicit in the temporal context of your example.

Click to expand...

Judging those of the past through the social norms of today is not legitimate. Those of the past don't live in the times of today, do they?

Judging people from their posts from years ago is the same thing.

Neither is legitimate.

What? Are you truly advocating for forbearing people spouting off at the mouth merely because they can? If you are, let me be clear, I'm not ever going to concur with such a notion. Consider what one wants to say and the scope of its implications. Accurately express what one truly thinks/feels. If one has a change of heart, own the former and new position, apologizing if the former position was and is reprehensible.

• Change from one political party to another --> That's not something to apologize for. It's just a change that one must own.
• Change from being a boor to being "civilized" --> Having been boorish is something for which one needs to apologize.

One can transform, but one cannot do so until one owns the fact of what one was before.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

As we see free speech die. Part of free speech is the right of that speech to fade. I'm sorry that you don't see that.

If all of live in the digital world is going to be recorded as if one was under oath, you expect any frank and honest exchanges to take place?
No.
Only guarded exchanges will take place. That's not very free, now, is it? Freedom is also the freedom to be forgotten.

We aren't going to agree, as you appear to believe that everything in digital life is essentially under oath, and I don't. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Okay...You're right. I think this conversation needs to end. You don't fully understand I wrote -- your retort makes that clear for you've elided material elements of the context -- and I don't know how to be more clear about it.

Suffice to say I don't at all think folks should refrain from expressing themselves. I think that folks must think carefully about the matters about which they are of a mind to express themselves and then express themselves prudently and precisely.

Nobody can say, prior to another's remarking on a matter, that person is ignorant on a matter, insouciant about material aspects of the matter, etc.; however, the speaker most certainly knows, prior to uttering their remarks, whether s/he is ignorant on the matter. Upon a speaker's uttering their thoughts, however, the rest can tell whether s/he is ignorant, etc. on the matter.

If one makes an inapt remark "today" and is of a different mind at some point in the future, just own it.

If someone slights me, while I may forgive them for having done, I'm not likely to forget they did so, and, frankly, neither should they. Yet "forgetting" is what you're asserting should happen. One cannot learn from that which one forgets. Learning is a lifelong process; it thus never pays to forget.

i would need to read the legislation before putting my support behind it

Xelor said:

Okay...You're right. I think this conversation needs to end. You don't fully understand I wrote -- your retort makes that clear for you've elided material elements of the context -- and I don't know how to be more clear about it.

Suffice to say I don't at all think folks should refrain from expressing themselves. I think that folks must think carefully about the matters about which they are of a mind to express themselves and then express themselves prudently and precisely.

It is no crime to be ignorant of a matter, but it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on that matter while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard (adapted)
​

Nobody can say, prior to another's remarking on a matter, that person is ignorant on a matter, insouciant about material aspects of the matter, etc.; however, the speaker most certainly knows, prior to uttering their remarks, whether s/he is ignorant on the matter. Upon a speaker's uttering their thoughts, however, the rest can tell whether s/he is ignorant, etc. on the matter.

If one makes an inapt remark "today" and is of a different mind at some point in the future, just own it.

If someone slights me, while I may forgive them for having done, I'm not likely to forget they did so, and, frankly, neither should they. Yet "forgetting" is what you're asserting should happen. One cannot learn from that which one forgets. Learning is a lifelong process; it thus never pays to forget.

Click to expand...

So perfectly fine to disqualify you from a public office because you were caught smoking pot behind the high school? OK fine.
So perfectly fine to disqualify you from a public office because you were caught bullying someone in high school? OK fine.

Memories of events in the past deserve to fade, in real life as well as in digital life.
Infinite perfect memory is not a blessing, it's a curse.

eohrnberger said:

So perfectly fine to disqualify you from a public office because you were caught smoking pot behind the high school? OK fine.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

So perfectly fine to disqualify you from a public office because you were caught bullying someone in high school? OK fine.

Click to expand...

The two passages above address the nature and extent of judgment others might make about my having committed those acts. The remarks do not at all address the point I've repeatedly attempted to convey and that you've disregarded. To use the above acts as a foil to yet again illustrate my points:

• The fact of my having committed those acts should not by me or anyone else be forgotten
• Whatever judgment and/or penalties others would impose upon me on account of my having committed those acts is a wholly separate matte from whether my commission of them be remembered.

Review my initial post on this topic. What is your question I answered? It is this, "Should those laws include the 'right to be forgotten?'" I did not remark upon the nature or extent of judgements others might apply to one's "ancient" thoughts and deeds.

When penning post 14, I suspected that you might be inadvertently conflating forgiveness and forgetfulness. Accordingly, I alluded to that possibility; however, I see my having done so elided your attention, or perhaps didn't for some reason.
Sure, forgive one their trespasses. To forget the trespasses for which one has truly made amends -- in words and deeds -- is to deny them an credit to which they are due. Knowing and not forgetting from whence one came is every bit as important as knowing where one is and where one is going.

eohrnberger said:

Memories of events in the past deserve to fade, in real life as well as in digital life.
Infinite perfect memory is not a blessing, it's a curse.

Click to expand...

Sure, forgive others their trespasses, if one sees fit to do so. To forget the trespasses for which oneself or others have truly made amends -- in words and deeds -- is to deny them (or oneself) the credit to which they are due. Knowing and not forgetting from whence one came is every bit as essential as knowing where one is and where one is going. We record events of the past so we don't going forward, succumb again to our prior shortcomings.

GDPR’s Right to be Forgotten is about more than removing embarrassing posts, is is about removing information that websites have captured about you. Aside from other provisions, it is about the ultimate opt-out for storing your information where there is not a lawful reason to store it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AliHajiSheik said:

GDPR’s Right to be Forgotten is about more than removing embarrassing posts, is is about removing information that websites have captured about you. Aside from other provisions, it is about the ultimate opt-out for storing your information where there is not a lawful reason to store it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Good point. With all the data businesses gather and harvest from the interview and its travelers, do these businesses have a 'lawful reason to store it' ?

I'm inclined to respond in the negative.