Originally posted by Wariat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
ask me if i care bro my record is new and clean from now on with diff last name.
you do realize that only applies to data companies have online right? companies like google, facebook and other search engines and social networks. for the individual we have this thing called freedom of speech.
also that conviction was in the US and that protectthekids.com site is a US site, so not affected by EU rulings.
unlucky pal
In Sidis v. FR Publishing Corp. (1940), the plaintiff, William James Sidis, was a former child prodigy who wished to spend his adult life quietly, without recognition; however, this was disrupted by an article in The New Yorker.[65] The court held here that there were limits to the right to control one's life and facts about oneself, and held that there is social value in published facts, and that a person cannot ignore their celebrity status merely because they want to.[65]
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]
In a June 2014 opinion piece in Forbes, columnist Joseph Steinberg noted that "many privacy protections that Americans believe that they enjoy – even some guaranteed by law – have, in fact, been eroded or even obliterated by technological advances." Steinberg, in explaining the need for legislation guaranteeing the "right to be forgotten", noted that existing laws that require adverse information to be removed from credit reports after a period of time, and that allow the sealing or expunging of criminals records, are effectively undermined by the ability of prospective lenders or employers to forever find the removed information in a matter of seconds by doing a web search.[68]
On March 11, 2015, Intelligence Squared US, an organization that stages Oxford-Style debates, held an event centered on the question, "Should the U.S. adopt the 'Right to be Forgotten' online?" The side against the motion won with a 56% majority of the voting audience.[69]
While opinions among experts are divided in the U.S., one survey indicated that 9 in 10 Americans want some form of the right to be forgotten.[70] The consumer rights organization Consumer Watchdog has filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission for Americans to obtain the right as well.[71]
In March 2017, New York state senator Tony Avella and assemblyman David Weprin introduced a bill proposing that individuals be allowed to require search engines and online speakers to remove information that is "inaccurate", "irrelevant", "inadequate", or "excessive", that is "no longer material to current public debate or discourse" and is causing demonstrable harm to the subject.[72]
looks like you're stuck with it for the time being.
besides, even with the EU ruling it doesn't really apply to previous convictions where public protection concerns are applicable. public protection is paramount to some pedo trying to hide his child molesting ass.
.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
