User Controls
GDPR and the recent emphasis on privacy
-
2019-02-01 at 7:44 PM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
Seems to me like far from some victory of citizens against corporate/state interests, this actually is designed to allow bad things to happen without anyone being allowed to know. It also allows bad people to get away with things, or have the record erased when they do (the "right to be forgotten" is used quite a bit by rich European crooks to remove unflattering google search listings).
Anyone else get that sense? -
2019-02-01 at 7:45 PM UTC[needs context?]
-
2019-02-01 at 7:51 PM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
Originally posted by eyeluvthe9ds [needs context?]
The example of a negligent doctor who won the right to be removed from Google following massive legal action.The doctor's interest in not appearing on a list of doctors that were deemed negligent (via google search) was deemed more important than patients' interest in avoiding negligent doctors.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/aia2wp/dutch_surgeon_wins_landmark_right_to_be_forgotten/
The negligent surgeon's name is Rita Kappel, and she's a plastic surgeon who severely fucked up several patients.
https://archive.fo/aNpNcThe EU’s “right to be forgotten” was first established in May 2014 and since then has resulted in the removal of just over one million URLs from Google’s search results. Google categorises most of the links removed as belonging to “miscellaneous” sites, but according to its October 2018 transparency report, almost 19 percent are from news sites, 17.3 percent are from directory sites, and 11.6 percent are from social media. Facebook is the single most popular site with 20,000 of its URLs delisted since 2014.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/22/18192626/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-dutch-surgeon-medical-negligence
Stuff like this seems tailor made to encourage, and hide, evil. -
2019-02-02 at 4:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life The example of a negligent doctor who won the right to be removed from Google following massive legal action.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/aia2wp/dutch_surgeon_wins_landmark_right_to_be_forgotten/
The negligent surgeon's name is Rita Kappel, and she's a plastic surgeon who severely fucked up several patients.
https://archive.fo/aNpNc
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/22/18192626/eu-right-to-be-forgotten-dutch-surgeon-medical-negligence
Stuff like this seems tailor made to encourage, and hide, evil.
this is how it will be in a capital feudalist society. -
2019-02-08 at 12:56 AM UTCThe surgeon seems like an isolated case. And even if people are managing to successfully bring cases against search engines it's not like news sites are being hit in some effort to keep the truth from people. Google's status and the status of a medical board or media outlet are different, and it doesn't even matter in this case, google doesn't give a shit about bringing you the truth on some medical malpractitioner, they just didn't want a precedent that would represent increased costs in moderation.
GDPR is far from perfect legislation and a pain in the ass to comply with but it's clearly a citizen protection act, not about covering up corruption or conspiracy. -
2019-02-08 at 12:59 AM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
No one claimed GDPR was about covering up corruption or conspiracy. It's about hiding the precise identity of the doers of individual misdeeds.
-
2019-02-08 at 1:03 AM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
Also was thinking about this today, and was wondering why a medical practitioner doesn't deserve to be judged by google, but by their medical association (in other words their trade union), but the individual medical associations(trade unions) have already declared that their job isn't to punish members, merely to motivate them to perform better in the future.
In other words every medical association(trade union) in Europe still follows the UK medical council model that allowed Doctor Harold Shipman to get away with more than 200 murders, despite a dozen or so complaints, before he was finally busted by a curious and suspicious lawyer.
I know my personal GP should be in jail right now for what she did to one of my neighbours. I only still use her for prescriptions (nothing else) cos I know how she thinks. -
2019-02-08 at 1:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life No one claimed GDPR was about covering up corruption or conspiracy. It's about hiding the precise identity of the doers of individual misdeeds.
Well again, isolated incident. The article you linked even stated this is the first such case. Like yeah, privacy law is going to mean people have more privacy, and it turns out some of those people are going to have done bad things. That doesn't say anything about what motivated the law or if it's justified. -
2019-02-08 at 1:13 AM UTCSoyboy IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life African Astronaut [the oppositely able-bodied hop-step-and-jump]
Originally posted by Lanny The article you linked even stated this is the first such case.
The first such case of the medical council (meaning her own trade union) ruling against her.
Do you know how it is with doctors? The rules are all in their favour, the only complaints procedure is via their own trade union, and it isn't even a complaints procedure, but an improvement process. Also like all members of the closed professions they are encouraged to retire if they are likely to be stricken down.
This doctor has done a lot of evil to a lot of people.
I've personally been mistreated by loads of medical professionals - doctors and nurses both.
Aren't you a developer? So you work without a union, without professional indemnity, without a complaints procedure biased in your favour, etc?
Aren't you even a little teensy bit angry at being basically a moron goyim prole? Aren't you angry about being made a cuck of? -
2019-02-08 at 2:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING IV: The Flower of Death and The Crystal of Life The first such case of the medical council (meaning her own trade union) ruling against her.
No. See:The ruling is thought to be the first time a search result relating to medical negligence has been removed in the almost five years since the EU first established its citizens’ “right to be forgotten.”
Do you know how it is with doctors? The rules are all in their favour, the only complaints procedure is via their own trade union, and it isn't even a complaints procedure, but an improvement process. Also like all members of the closed professions they are encouraged to retire if they are likely to be stricken down.
As opposed to what? You can still bring a malpractice case against a doctor, professional associations don't make professionals immune to the court system.This doctor has done a lot of evil to a lot of people.
Ok... so what? Doctor did bad thing, that's not great, but I don't see this as a particular indictment of the GDPR. Like the 5th amendment here in the US helps out guilty sometimes, so do miranda rights, so do sentence limits, but just because legislation has favorable implications for bad people sometimes doesn't mean they're a plot to avoid anyone having to take responsibility for anything.Aren't you a developer? So you work without a union, without professional indemnity, without a complaints procedure biased in your favour, etc?
Aren't you even a little teensy bit angry at being basically a moron goyim prole? Aren't you angry about being made a cuck of?
I'd made the argument for unionization for programmers multiple times on this very forum, so you can suck my fat cock and continue being a little bitch who gets spooked at the sight of a hook nosed shadow. -
2019-02-08 at 4:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny As opposed to what? You can still bring a malpractice case against a doctor, professional associations don't make professionals immune to the court system.
yes and guess who the courts are going to rely on whether a doctor commited a malpractice or not ?
yes, another doctor,
and like lsd said,
doctors stick together. -
2019-02-08 at 4:58 AM UTCExcept they don't really. It's pretty routine to bring a doctor as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a malpractice case.
-
2019-02-08 at 5:01 AM UTCbut how do you know that their telling the truth ?
-
2019-02-08 at 5:22 AM UTCI think you don't quite understand what's being talked about right now
-
2019-02-08 at 6:03 AM UTCisn't that 'right to be forgotten' faggotry separate from the GDPR?
-
2019-02-08 at 6:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think you don't quite understand what's being talked about right now
just because one doctor is claiming another doctor is doing something wrong doesnt mean hes telling the truth.
he can even testify in such a way that itd appear as if hes saying the defendant commited wrongdoings but provide plenty of holes for the defense to rebutt.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-02-08 at 6:18 AM UTC
-
2019-02-08 at 6:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny just because one doctor is claiming another doctor is doing something wrong doesnt mean hes telling the truth.
Let's just pretend like there's absolutely no way we can verify expert testimony and no doctors have any integrity at all and the threat of punishment for perjury means nothing (none of which is true). This sill disproves the "doctor cabal just looks out for its own" fiction. -
2019-02-08 at 12:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Let's just pretend like there's absolutely no way we can verify expert testimony and no doctors have any integrity at all and the threat of punishment for perjury means nothing (none of which is true). This sill disproves the "doctor cabal just looks out for its own" fiction.
things like malpractice can hardly be proven empirically. its all judgement vs another persons judgement in retrospect with full load of hindsight.
things like misdiagnosis because a desease or an infection is so rare or due to the lack of this and that etc etc.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-02-08 at 10:19 PM UTC"no"
