SW rant time
-
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.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@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.
The works are still published, on a server in the control of a business that could, at will whenever dig up that kind of information.
Email is not publishing.
-
Compare to the real world.... if you have an advertising agency, and you shut down the company, do you expect that all ads you've had run in magazines to delete themselves over time?
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
Compare to the real world.... if you have an advertising agency, and you shut down the company, do you expect that all ads you've had run in magazines to delete themselves over time?
No, but you would have the expectation that eventually, you'd be forgotten about.
The reason you use billboards for advertising is the chance that the billboard will not be resold to a new advertiser for months/years. You use them because you want to be remembered for so long as you possibly can. Internet just takes it to the next level, nothing ever goes away.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
And in this case, of publishing to a forum, with people who opt to close their accounts.
The right to be forgotten will have an impact on this for the very same case that was charged against google.
Nope, the issue is that you have created a false association in your head that does not exist. Until you can provide the association between publicly posting something, closing an account, and the right to be forgotten, we will just keep pointing out that you are speaking gibberish. The entire conversation about the right to be forgotten is misguided as nothnig has led us to that.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@travisdh1 said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
Compare to the real world.... if you have an advertising agency, and you shut down the company, do you expect that all ads you've had run in magazines to delete themselves over time?
No, but you would have the expectation that eventually, you'd be forgotten about.
The reason you use billboards for advertising is the chance that the billboard will not be resold to a new advertiser for months/years. You use them because you want to be remembered for so long as you possibly can. Internet just takes it to the next level, nothing ever goes away.
That is not why billboards are used. Billboards are used as a means of attracting as much attention in the short span of time that a possible customer may be in front of you.
Nothing of a billboard advertisement matches what is being discussed, which is the "right to be forgotten". (granted in the EU / UK atm)
The right to be forgotten means if you committed a crime a decade ago, and served your time, that you shouldn't have to constantly announce that crime as if it happened yesterday. Especially so for things that are petty in nature.
Wrong again, totally associated. Posting on a forum is exactly like posting on a billboard. Exactly. Both are voluntary, and public.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
The right to be forgotten means if you committed a crime a decade ago, and served your time, that you shouldn't have to constantly announce that crime as if it happened yesterday. Especially so for things that are petty in nature.
And you think something like that relates to closing an account and giving up the right to control your own posting, how?
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
The right to be forgotten will have an impact on this for the very same case that was charged against google.
Nope, very different. I'm not sure why you associate a cache with the publishing media, but again, not a real association.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
The right to be forgotten means if you committed a crime a decade ago, and served your time, that you shouldn't have to constantly announce that crime as if it happened yesterday. Especially so for things that are petty in nature.
And you think something like that relates to closing an account and giving up the right to control your own posting, how?
I'm giving you scenarios that have happened and courts have ruled on.
A forum account, is fully at will. Posting is at will. Closing your account is at will.
Yes, exactly. You posted at will, you gave up your ability to be associated at will.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
As you are a proponent of keeping posts around forever for educational purposes you could be seen as infringing on the right to be forgotten of a person who chooses to leave the forums.
Nope, and if you think so, you've completely missed the conversation.
-
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
If they can't delete the content they've posted because they no longer have access to the account, but asked you to, you would have to comply with that request.
How? if they've deleted their account, how are they the owners of the data? How can they prove that they owned it if they voluntarily gave up that association?
-
@scottalanmiller said in SW rant time:
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
As you are a proponent of keeping posts around forever for educational purposes you could be seen as infringing on the right to be forgotten of a person who chooses to leave the forums.
Nope, and if you think so, you've completely missed the conversation.
You've clearly missed the boat if this is what you believe. Look at the court cases that have sided with people asking google (etc) to delete content that the person originally published!
-
This post is deleted! -
@dustinb3403 said in SW rant time:
If they can't delete the content they've posted because they no longer have access to the account, but asked you to, you would have to comply with that request.
As there is no Right to be Forgotten, why do you think this?
