Former NSA Lawyer Asks Google To 'Forget' All Of Techdirt's Posts About Him
from the making-a-point-about-bad-laws dept
Former NSA counsel and surveillance/security state hypeman Stewart Baker has had just about enough of Techdirt making "distorted claims" about his statements for the "purposes of making money." To counter this, he's sent a "right to be forgotten" request to Google stating the following:
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=stewart+bakerBaker's certainly not hoping for Techdirt's posts on him to be de-listed (although I imagine he'd indulge in a chuckle or two if they went down). He's mocking the ridiculousness of the "right to be forgotten" ruling Google is now attempting to comply with. He has submitted other requests as well over such things as outdated photos and "inaccurate" statements as the kickoff to an informal "hack" of a bad law.
Reason this link violates the right to be forgotten:
This link is inappropriate. It compiles stories making many distorted claims about my political views. Political views are a particularly sensitive form of personal data. The stories are written by men who disagree with me, and they are assembled for the purpose of making money for a website, a purpose that cannot outweigh my interest in controlling the presentation of sensitive data about myself.
I feel bad for Google, which is stuck trying to administer this preposterous ruling. But that shouldn't prevent us from showing quite concretely how preposterous it is.Stewart's takedown request targeting Techdirt is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but it does highlight the sort of abuse that should be expected when government bodies attempt to force the internet to bend to their will. Granting a "right to be forgotten" pretty much ensures that a majority of the requests will be no more legitimate than Baker's.
I propose a contest. Let's all ask for takedowns. The person who makes the most outrageous (and successful) takedown request will win a "worst abuse of privacy law" prize, otherwise known as a Privy.
Multiple advocates for the law have compared it with the infamous DMCA takedown notice, something that has also been routinely abused. But at least the DMCA takedown carries with it the (almost never enforced) charge of perjury for issuing bogus takedowns. The RTBF form simply asks for a copy of the submitter's identification. There's nothing in it to discourage abuse of the system. If you don't like something someone has said about you on the web, just fill out a webform.
While we at Techdirt disagree with most of what Stewart Baker says, at least his position on privacy remains consistent. His "Privys" -- an "award" given to the worst or most hypocritical abuser of privacy laws -- have generally been awarded to worthy recipients, usually people who tend to think these laws exist to save them from their own embarrassments.
As for the "right to be forgotten," it appears as though requests may be forwarded to Chilling Effects. On June 6th, this test post showed up in the database.
A request has been made to remove one or more links from a search page under European "right to be forgotten" rules, following Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Mario Costeja Gonzalez.The body of the post contains nothing but the word "TEST" but this seems to indicate that an attempt will be made to publish takedown attempts. At this point, it's impossible to say how much information will be redacted, or if the European Commission will even allow this sort of transparency. Google is also toying with appending messages to the bottom of search results pages indicating that link(s) may have been removed due to "RTBF" requests. If this works like DMCA requests do, then a link to Chilling Effects database will be provided. These measures won't necessarily deter abuse, but they will make it much easier to track.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: abuse, censorship, europe, nsa, right to be forgotten, right to forget, search engines, stewart baker
Companies: google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“That prize should have already been awarded to the NSA for the abuse of the 4th amendment.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Even attempting to rationalize this statement hurts my brain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is he trying to get us to create a DDOS attack on Google? That fiend!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That prize should have already been awarded to the NSA for the abuse of the 4th amendment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Poor Stewart.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You don't like comment you made 20 years ago when you were just a kid? NO? TOO BAD! What would all the senseless bitches discuss on their mommy blogs? It's a serious topic, and you must be screened, retroactively, for everything google manages to index. What would HR do all day?
"Oh? the NSA is doing the same thing."
"NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNO! That's different!"
-another silly stupid brain damaged TechDirt reader
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF, Tim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right to be forgotten to be posted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You know, there were archives before the Internet Archive and search engines before Google. I can still (rather easily) find comments that I made online over 30 years ago. There are numerous public and private archives of mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups from that era, and they're not going away. (One project, http://olduse.net/ is reposting them.)
There is no way to make those go away. No legislation, no litigation, no court orders, nothing is going to ever make those go away. There are and will be copies squirreled away on disks and CDs, USB sticks and tapes, all over the planet, and they'll be copied to new media as old ones age out. (1600 BPI 9-track -> 8mm -> DVD -> flash, for example.) And nothing will ever stop anyone from re-releasing them -- say, as a torrent -- should they choose to do so.
That paragraph isn't a value judgment on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. It's a reality assessment. And this farsical EU "right to be forgotten" is in direct conflict with reality, which is why -- regardless of its theoretical merits or lack thereof -- it will never, ever happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Google indexes publicly available information on websites that people choose to post where the Robots exclusion standard can be used to prevent the Google indexing.
The NSA takes every piece of data it can without any official or unofficial form of disclosure agreement for systems and communications where citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Google isn't perfect, but you can block them with robots.txt and you can decline to post to websites that allow Google indexing.
You can't escape from the NSA's data collection without having to go off grid.
But don't let reality get in the way of your FUD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TechDirt Takedown
Please take remove all references to TechDirt on the Internetz as every mention maligns me with their spurious reference to 'tech'. As a person with a high percentage of Neanderthal DNA, and living high on a mountain in a cave and using only tools created by my ancestors, tech is not even in my vocabulary, and is therefore insulting to my personage.
Sincerely,
Joe Dirt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Again
Did a quick search, but got no results back, so I guess it's just one of those familiar sounding names...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can agree to one view, without agreeing with the others
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1. Read article 2. Post comment
'I feel bad for Google, which is stuck trying to administer this preposterous ruling. But that shouldn't prevent us from showing quite concretely how preposterous it is.
I propose a contest. Let's all ask for takedowns. The person who makes the most outrageous (and successful) takedown request will win a "worst abuse of privacy law" prize, otherwise known as a Privy.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 1. Read article 2. Post comment
We explain that in our post as well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You can agree to one view, without agreeing with the others
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WTF, Tim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Back in the USSR
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Back in the USSR
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just Individuals?
Will nations make the same requests? Is there already an effort to "Forget Pearl Harbor", "Forget the Alamo" and "Forget Winnipeg?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right to be forgotten to be posted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, at least the DMCA is trying to address a real offense: unauthorized copying. "Right to be forgotten" doesn't even deal with a real offense: Posting truthful information is not itself illegal, even in places like the UK where the laws are so fucked up that those accused of libel have to prove their statements are true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J Smith
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Again
People aren't islands. "Forgetting" one person affects other people. Your "right" to be forgotten may infringe my "right" to be remembered. Your censorship may affect my free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You can agree to one view, without agreeing with the others
>Therefore, eating sugar is evil.
Sugar was a wonderful girl and cannibalism was wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When was the charge of perjury ever enforced and has anyone ever been convicted of perjury for bogus DMCA takedowns?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not european
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Baker
In the US, there is no "right to be forgotten". It is entirely a European thing. In the US, the truth is an absolute defense against libel. In Europe, not so much, which is clearly insane. Any competent lawyer would know this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: WTF, Tim
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like, if your surname was Disney.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why
I liked the fact that i could do a search on google and do so for images and places and quickly do a google maps search etc, Google is very useful but others are catching up and using the same robot files Google uses to do searches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Both "rights" are created only by government and law; if the government and the law says it's forbidden, then it is by definition illegal.
The dispute (or part thereof) is about whether, to what extent, and/or with what penalties or other remedies such things *should* be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not european
Did you read the article?
"Baker's certainly not hoping for Techdirt's posts on him to be de-listed (although I imagine he'd indulge in a chuckle or two if they went down). He's mocking the ridiculousness of the "right to be forgotten" ruling Google is now attempting to comply with."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You can agree to one view, without agreeing with the others
Second day, I drank vodka with soda, and got stone drunk again.
Third day I drank whiskey with soda, and again plastered..
So I concluded that drinking soda makes you drunk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]