Re: I know, I say the basic reasoning, BUT some dont get it..
As for RTBF
Victims of crime named on a website. Do yourself think a women who has been raped or beaten deserves for that information to be the number one result when anyone searches her name?
People found not guilty, and as such are innocent
People who were found guilty, but later had their conviction quashed
People simply arrested and never charged.
People whose medical information is online. Is therec really a need for somone to know you had syphilis 10 years ago?
Or simply in cases where the information is completely false
Politicians - well they are a public figures, so unlikely to be able to use it. The public interest test is a major factor.
And yes, people convicted of low level crimes can sometimes benefit. Usually only when the conviction is considered spent, and they legally do not have to declare it for rehabilitation issues. RTBF is just a way that ordinary people can make their case. If there is a real public interest, then they will not succeed.
Anyone can threaten to sue anyone. We all have the power to write a letter and say absolutely anything. But that is a million miles away from somone actually suing somone! In order to be sued, It has to go to court, and a judge has to find in favour of Getty. Think of it like saying you are going to be an astronaut. It doesn't mean you are an astronaut.
Yes I read the case, it's not relevant to this thread.
Getty didn't sue Highsmith (it was the other way around. Highsmith tried to sue Getty, but the case was dismissed/settled out of court)
So my original assertion still stands. Only the copyright owner can take action against others foŕ copyright infringement. So, somone who owns the copyright does need to worry about an outsider going against her wishes.
Reread what I wrote. The article you link to isn't relevant to the point. Highsmith was suing Getty, not the other way around. She gave the images to Getty, but with certain conditions. Ones which they breached. As I noted, any of us can threaten legal action, it doesn't mean we have any right to sue, or even if we do that we will be successful. I'm looking for a case where Getty sued for copyright despite not owning the copyright. That was my only point that:
The only person who could take action is the copyright owner. So you don't need to worry about anyone getting sued on your behalf. It is not possible.
Happy to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's possible
I would take anything printed in the Telegraph, with a massive pinch of salt! They have their own agenda. I've not read the article, but there will have been conditions that the data isn't retained, maybe they don't need to pass on the names, just the addresses etc. It's likely it didn't delay things at all. Although we're in unchartered waters, the government's and supermarkets should have disaster planning for such situations. If there was a delay, it will be a failure of planning. GDPR in this situation isn't much different than our old data protection anyway. We have plenty of data privacy / freedom of information professionals who understand the issues Certain papers like to use anything related to EU as a scapegoat, even if the UK actively supported the actual measures. Indeed this current government have been very skilled at passing blame.
Apologies for the typos! To be fair the controversial tweet is fine all by itself, nothing wrong with what it says in isolation. So you would need to look at the earlier one to see that there was even a photo anyway, so anyone concerned would have to look at the context. In which case, they would have seen the actual question. How we answer questions, depends on the actual question. The article could have at least put the final tweet in the text where they explain the situation. It seems a little unfair to complain about it, and not mention that the guy explained the situation. We all have our biases, but there are limits to missing out the other point of view.
The main thrust of the article, concerning the value of copyright. I think we could all write a good few pages for and against. The article only touched on this.
Do I care if somone uses a picture of my cat without permission that I took. It depends, in most cases no, I don't care. I may or may not want acknowledgment, I would think it was polite to get permission. If it's being used as a link image to advertise a bestiality site, then yes I'm glad I can ask them to remove due to my rights as a copyright owner. If it's being sold on an image site, and people are making profit I want a share, or simply removed. If it's being used in a story on a newspaper that I absolutely hate, like the Daily Fail, then no, I don't want them using my work.
Let's face it, unless there is big money it is always a case of somone just removing the content if the copyright owner objects. Or often just adding a link and ackowledment us what many people want. We can all take our own photos of a cat anyway. Can't we? So shouldn't the focus be on stopping laziness. Take your own photo, or use a photo which is copyright free etc. It's not hard.
I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just cite a case where somone who didn't own the copyright successfully sued somone for copyright enfringememt, against the wishes of the copyright owner.
I'm not sure which case you are referring too. The links seem to be about people suing Getty, not the other way around. But no If you don't give/sell the copyright to getty or anyone else, it is you and only you that can take action against copyright infringement. Of course anyone can try and extort money out of somone else, and even threaten legal action, but that is a different matter.
I can steal a laptop, and threaten to sue them if they don't pay a fee for "looking after" their property. It doesn't mean a court will side with me though, it would be bizarre if they did!
All government created work is part of the public domain, meaning you can freely use and reuse it. As cat people, we'd welcome it
So the context was about retweeting. Sure it could have been spelled out. But the character limits and the fast pace of Twitter means that tweets could often be clearer. In any case, he/she clarifies:
To wrap up, it’s ok to RT this image and text, because it’s a combo of public domain and licensed work paired to use on twitter. But it’s not ok to use this image separately from this tweet, or outside twitter, say as a cover for an upcoming album 4/5
Happy #NationalPetDay from the Copyright Office. All 10k of the photos you took of your cat while asleep are protected by copyright from the moment they are created.
Which is fair enough, saying the default is that images are copyright protected But yes, the following comment about public domain could perhaps have been better worded. But it was in response to sharing on Twitter, so in context wad correct. People looking at Twitter generally appreciate the context of what the reply was from, and character limitations. It's clutching it draws complaining about this, it feels like looking for an opportunity to criticise as opposed to legitimate confusion about the messages.
To wrap up, it’s ok to RT this image and text, because it’s a combo of public domain and licensed work paired to use on twitter. But it’s not ok to use this image separately from this tweet, or outside twitter, say as a cover for an upcoming album 4/5
Makes sense to me. I don't see an issue. The guy you mentioned did query about retweeting, and that answers it. Twitter is Twitter, you only use do many characters
It seems they paid for a Shutterstock image, and their licence allows them to use the image in certain circumstances such as tweeting. Indeed people subscribe and pay for images from the likes of Shutterstock so they don't have to credit, that is what the payment is for. It all, very normal and perfectly legal.
If you created it, you own the copyright. Many people are fine with others reusing their content, some may prefer a credit and a link back, others may not want you to use the content in certain situations, others don't care how you use it. It's not hard to simply ask the content owner, or just take your own photo of a cat if you can't be bothered.
I'm on the fence on this one. The idea is that Google are making money through advertising revenue, and if it is the case that they are making more revenue than the people producing journalistic content, then there is an issue. It's all fine and well arguing that newspapers need the likes of google, but google wouldn't be successful if people did not produce quality journalistic content in the first place. This might not be the right answer, but it's not completely wrong either.
I find it strange that you look at that problem and apparently think the best approach is to tear down the first amendment so that people don't find about the arrests, rather than actually fixing the problem of so many young men of color getting arrested in the first place.
Some arrests will be perfectly legitimate, even if they do not lead to a charge, so the problem will affect people regardless. Officers have to make that decision based on the facts available to them at that time. But yes agree, it would be better that innocent people are not arrested in the first place, and unfair arrests are not skewed to certain demographics. But back in the real world, that's not going to happen - and when it affects peoples ability to work and leave their life - then it is an issue that any fair society should address. It doesn't necesserily have to be RTBF, you could make it free for the general public to sue people who disseminate inaccurate information, and give large fines - I'm not sure that's what you would want though. I'm not familiar with your first amendment, but I'd query if it was written today if it would be worded in the same way in todays information society. We change our laws when our world changes, it is called progress. The RTBF is rather light weight, the speech isn't affected, it's still there on individual sites - it just acknowledges that in limited circumstances that it may not be fair for search engines to rank it in a certain way under a persons name. Even with a successful RTBF delisting, it is still much easier for people to access information about individuals than it was say 20 years ago.
Yes I agree, I found the statement "I'm still free to do as I wish even if there is inaccurate information about me on the internet. My liberty has not been curtailed" as beyond rediculous. Especially as we know inaccurate or simply out of date info coming up in search results prevents people from gaining employment and renting accommodation. What a warped definition of the meaning of liberty. When you start having such an absolutist interpretation of certain rights, with the exclusion of other rights and ignoring the reality of everyday circumstances then you basically go down the extremism path.
As you note this mostly affects certain demographics, and often the poorest in society. The rich have the funds to fight these sites through legal channel, or pay for reputation management. RTBF just gives normal people a chance to live in a normal life.
Google routinely delists info in the USA too, such as sites giving out passport numbers, credit card details, so it's happening anywayto some extent. RTBF is simply a balance of different rights, designed for the reality of the information age, it's not absolute, and freedom of expression will also we be considered.
I'm curious to know If I can de-list Disney videos from YouTube by posting information from your tag.
If you put Goonink's name and details of his controversial past on a Disney youtube. Then he could do a RTBF for this, and have them deslisted if it was agreed to violate his rights. But only search results that come up with Goolnik's name would be delisted. So the Disney videos will still come up if someone is searching for Disney videos, and indeed in any other circumstances. After looking through this thread, I'm not sure many people actually understand the limited scope of RTBF
We have accepted, for centuries, that a criminal conviction is public information.
That’s very misleading. In the UK many convictions are considered spent after a set period of time. In which people do not need to declare them in most instances. It’s been like that for many decades perhaps longer. It’s the idea that the person is rehabilitated after some time, and having to declare their conviction in most circumstances means they cannot lead a normal life. Not a new thing at all – most western democracies have similar rules. My understanding is that that unspent convictions would be considered to be in the “public interest”, so search engines would rarely if ever delist them. Of course if a person has a spent conviction, and details of their conviction is right at the top of a search in their name, then their right not to declare their conviction is pretty much useless. So it undermines the whole purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It’s the conflicts of rights like these, where a balance needs to be struck, and RTBF is just a way for the arguments for delisting to be discussed – it’s not absolute – many times they decide not to delist. Because yes often people who believe in RTBF also believe in freedom of expression too, but appreciate the bigger picture. Of course RTBF is not something just about criminal convictions, it could be victims of crime, a relative of an offender, or perhaps it includes superfluous personal information, like a guy arrested and not charged, but it mentions he was wearing ladies clothes or is HIV Positive.
The RTBF overturns that completely.
Not at all! We have not had the likes of Google or similar for centuries, where we can do a quick search 24 hours a day on a random normal person and discover articles about them. In the recent past, researchers would have to travel and invest a great deal of time going to archives, libraries, or talking to the police to find this information. And even if they did, the indexes of the past would usually only list prominent people who had some sort of role in public life, or committed a serious offence. An ordinary member of the public who was somehow involved in a minor crime, wouldn’t be in these indexes. They would obviously only invest this effort if there was a real business case to do, call it “public interest”. The General Public / journalists are no less disadvantaged than centuries or even decades ago. Indeed, even if a RTBF request is successful, people can easily go direct to newspaper websites to locate this information. And I don’t have a problem with that. It means people who have a real need to find the information will invest a little effort. Those who don’t have a real need, will be blissfully unaware.
The right and precedent to be able to answer a citizen or journalists question of Why is this man in prison with "None of your business" if one of the parties felt compelled to invoke the RTBF.
I’d doubt it would ever cover people who were actually in prison, as you have to make the request yourself, and usually people don’t have access to the internet in prison anyway. But also, the sentence cannot be considered spent if you are still serving time, and the passage of time would not be great enough to justify it. Indeed a long prison sentence, would mean it would always be in the public interest to disclose the information. But again citizens and journalists who have a real reason to find out this information can, they just need to put some effort into it. The RTBF is not an absolute right, it is a balancing freedom of expression, the right to privacy and data protection, and the public interest.
On the post: UPDATED: GDPR (Briefly) Blocked Grocers From Accessing Lists Of 'At Risk' People In Need Of Food Packages
Re: I know, I say the basic reasoning, BUT some dont get it..
As for RTBF
Victims of crime named on a website. Do yourself think a women who has been raped or beaten deserves for that information to be the number one result when anyone searches her name?
People found not guilty, and as such are innocent
People who were found guilty, but later had their conviction quashed
People simply arrested and never charged.
People whose medical information is online. Is therec really a need for somone to know you had syphilis 10 years ago?
Or simply in cases where the information is completely false
Politicians - well they are a public figures, so unlikely to be able to use it. The public interest test is a major factor.
And yes, people convicted of low level crimes can sometimes benefit. Usually only when the conviction is considered spent, and they legally do not have to declare it for rehabilitation issues. RTBF is just a way that ordinary people can make their case. If there is a real public interest, then they will not succeed.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can threaten to sue anyone. We all have the power to write a letter and say absolutely anything. But that is a million miles away from somone actually suing somone! In order to be sued, It has to go to court, and a judge has to find in favour of Getty. Think of it like saying you are going to be an astronaut. It doesn't mean you are an astronaut.
Yes I read the case, it's not relevant to this thread.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reread what I wrote. The article you link to isn't relevant to the point. Highsmith was suing Getty, not the other way around. She gave the images to Getty, but with certain conditions. Ones which they breached. As I noted, any of us can threaten legal action, it doesn't mean we have any right to sue, or even if we do that we will be successful. I'm looking for a case where Getty sued for copyright despite not owning the copyright. That was my only point that:
Happy to be proven wrong, but I can't see how it's possible
On the post: UPDATED: GDPR (Briefly) Blocked Grocers From Accessing Lists Of 'At Risk' People In Need Of Food Packages
I would take anything printed in the Telegraph, with a massive pinch of salt! They have their own agenda. I've not read the article, but there will have been conditions that the data isn't retained, maybe they don't need to pass on the names, just the addresses etc. It's likely it didn't delay things at all. Although we're in unchartered waters, the government's and supermarkets should have disaster planning for such situations. If there was a delay, it will be a failure of planning. GDPR in this situation isn't much different than our old data protection anyway. We have plenty of data privacy / freedom of information professionals who understand the issues Certain papers like to use anything related to EU as a scapegoat, even if the UK actively supported the actual measures. Indeed this current government have been very skilled at passing blame.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Added an update
Apologies for the typos! To be fair the controversial tweet is fine all by itself, nothing wrong with what it says in isolation. So you would need to look at the earlier one to see that there was even a photo anyway, so anyone concerned would have to look at the context. In which case, they would have seen the actual question. How we answer questions, depends on the actual question. The article could have at least put the final tweet in the text where they explain the situation. It seems a little unfair to complain about it, and not mention that the guy explained the situation. We all have our biases, but there are limits to missing out the other point of view.
The main thrust of the article, concerning the value of copyright. I think we could all write a good few pages for and against. The article only touched on this.
Do I care if somone uses a picture of my cat without permission that I took. It depends, in most cases no, I don't care. I may or may not want acknowledgment, I would think it was polite to get permission. If it's being used as a link image to advertise a bestiality site, then yes I'm glad I can ask them to remove due to my rights as a copyright owner. If it's being sold on an image site, and people are making profit I want a share, or simply removed. If it's being used in a story on a newspaper that I absolutely hate, like the Daily Fail, then no, I don't want them using my work.
Let's face it, unless there is big money it is always a case of somone just removing the content if the copyright owner objects. Or often just adding a link and ackowledment us what many people want. We can all take our own photos of a cat anyway. Can't we? So shouldn't the focus be on stopping laziness. Take your own photo, or use a photo which is copyright free etc. It's not hard.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm happy to be proven wrong. Just cite a case where somone who didn't own the copyright successfully sued somone for copyright enfringememt, against the wishes of the copyright owner.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure which case you are referring too. The links seem to be about people suing Getty, not the other way around. But no If you don't give/sell the copyright to getty or anyone else, it is you and only you that can take action against copyright infringement. Of course anyone can try and extort money out of somone else, and even threaten legal action, but that is a different matter.
I can steal a laptop, and threaten to sue them if they don't pay a fee for "looking after" their property. It doesn't mean a court will side with me though, it would be bizarre if they did!
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re:
If getty buy/acquire the copyright then yes. But that would only be with the consent of the original copyright owner.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Re: So what
Well there was a question:
And then there was a reply to the question:
So the context was about retweeting. Sure it could have been spelled out. But the character limits and the fast pace of Twitter means that tweets could often be clearer. In any case, he/she clarifies:
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Added an update
Well the first tweet said:
Which is fair enough, saying the default is that images are copyright protected But yes, the following comment about public domain could perhaps have been better worded. But it was in response to sharing on Twitter, so in context wad correct. People looking at Twitter generally appreciate the context of what the reply was from, and character limitations. It's clutching it draws complaining about this, it feels like looking for an opportunity to criticise as opposed to legitimate confusion about the messages.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Added an update
The followup tweet says:
Makes sense to me. I don't see an issue. The guy you mentioned did query about retweeting, and that answers it. Twitter is Twitter, you only use do many characters
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re:
The only person who could take action is the copyright owner. So you don't need to worry about anyone getting sued on your behalf. It is not possible.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: So what
It seems they paid for a Shutterstock image, and their licence allows them to use the image in certain circumstances such as tweeting. Indeed people subscribe and pay for images from the likes of Shutterstock so they don't have to credit, that is what the payment is for. It all, very normal and perfectly legal.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
So what
If you created it, you own the copyright. Many people are fine with others reusing their content, some may prefer a credit and a link back, others may not want you to use the content in certain situations, others don't care how you use it. It's not hard to simply ask the content owner, or just take your own photo of a cat if you can't be bothered.
On the post: French Government Says Google Must Pay French News Agencies For Sending Traffic Their Way
On the fence
I'm on the fence on this one. The idea is that Google are making money through advertising revenue, and if it is the case that they are making more revenue than the people producing journalistic content, then there is an issue. It's all fine and well arguing that newspapers need the likes of google, but google wouldn't be successful if people did not produce quality journalistic content in the first place. This might not be the right answer, but it's not completely wrong either.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some arrests will be perfectly legitimate, even if they do not lead to a charge, so the problem will affect people regardless. Officers have to make that decision based on the facts available to them at that time. But yes agree, it would be better that innocent people are not arrested in the first place, and unfair arrests are not skewed to certain demographics. But back in the real world, that's not going to happen - and when it affects peoples ability to work and leave their life - then it is an issue that any fair society should address. It doesn't necesserily have to be RTBF, you could make it free for the general public to sue people who disseminate inaccurate information, and give large fines - I'm not sure that's what you would want though. I'm not familiar with your first amendment, but I'd query if it was written today if it would be worded in the same way in todays information society. We change our laws when our world changes, it is called progress. The RTBF is rather light weight, the speech isn't affected, it's still there on individual sites - it just acknowledges that in limited circumstances that it may not be fair for search engines to rank it in a certain way under a persons name. Even with a successful RTBF delisting, it is still much easier for people to access information about individuals than it was say 20 years ago.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes I agree, I found the statement "I'm still free to do as I wish even if there is inaccurate information about me on the internet. My liberty has not been curtailed" as beyond rediculous. Especially as we know inaccurate or simply out of date info coming up in search results prevents people from gaining employment and renting accommodation. What a warped definition of the meaning of liberty. When you start having such an absolutist interpretation of certain rights, with the exclusion of other rights and ignoring the reality of everyday circumstances then you basically go down the extremism path.
As you note this mostly affects certain demographics, and often the poorest in society. The rich have the funds to fight these sites through legal channel, or pay for reputation management. RTBF just gives normal people a chance to live in a normal life.
Google routinely delists info in the USA too, such as sites giving out passport numbers, credit card details, so it's happening anywayto some extent. RTBF is simply a balance of different rights, designed for the reality of the information age, it's not absolute, and freedom of expression will also we be considered.
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: The right to abuse GDPR in comments
If you put Goonink's name and details of his controversial past on a Disney youtube. Then he could do a RTBF for this, and have them deslisted if it was agreed to violate his rights. But only search results that come up with Goolnik's name would be delisted. So the Disney videos will still come up if someone is searching for Disney videos, and indeed in any other circumstances. After looking through this thread, I'm not sure many people actually understand the limited scope of RTBF
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re:
The UK was part of the EU, so the ruling were as much the responsibility of the UK as any other EU country. Regardless, for UK cases it is the ICO and if needed the UK courts, are the ones that make the rulings. For RTBF, this was a landmark judgement:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/nt1-Nnt2-v-google-2018-Eewhc-799-QB.pdf
On the post: Someone Convinced Google To Delist Our Entire Right To Be Forgotten Tag In The EU For Searches On Their Name
Re: Re:
That’s very misleading. In the UK many convictions are considered spent after a set period of time. In which people do not need to declare them in most instances. It’s been like that for many decades perhaps longer. It’s the idea that the person is rehabilitated after some time, and having to declare their conviction in most circumstances means they cannot lead a normal life. Not a new thing at all – most western democracies have similar rules. My understanding is that that unspent convictions would be considered to be in the “public interest”, so search engines would rarely if ever delist them. Of course if a person has a spent conviction, and details of their conviction is right at the top of a search in their name, then their right not to declare their conviction is pretty much useless. So it undermines the whole purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It’s the conflicts of rights like these, where a balance needs to be struck, and RTBF is just a way for the arguments for delisting to be discussed – it’s not absolute – many times they decide not to delist. Because yes often people who believe in RTBF also believe in freedom of expression too, but appreciate the bigger picture. Of course RTBF is not something just about criminal convictions, it could be victims of crime, a relative of an offender, or perhaps it includes superfluous personal information, like a guy arrested and not charged, but it mentions he was wearing ladies clothes or is HIV Positive.
Not at all! We have not had the likes of Google or similar for centuries, where we can do a quick search 24 hours a day on a random normal person and discover articles about them. In the recent past, researchers would have to travel and invest a great deal of time going to archives, libraries, or talking to the police to find this information. And even if they did, the indexes of the past would usually only list prominent people who had some sort of role in public life, or committed a serious offence. An ordinary member of the public who was somehow involved in a minor crime, wouldn’t be in these indexes. They would obviously only invest this effort if there was a real business case to do, call it “public interest”. The General Public / journalists are no less disadvantaged than centuries or even decades ago. Indeed, even if a RTBF request is successful, people can easily go direct to newspaper websites to locate this information. And I don’t have a problem with that. It means people who have a real need to find the information will invest a little effort. Those who don’t have a real need, will be blissfully unaware.
I’d doubt it would ever cover people who were actually in prison, as you have to make the request yourself, and usually people don’t have access to the internet in prison anyway. But also, the sentence cannot be considered spent if you are still serving time, and the passage of time would not be great enough to justify it. Indeed a long prison sentence, would mean it would always be in the public interest to disclose the information. But again citizens and journalists who have a real reason to find out this information can, they just need to put some effort into it. The RTBF is not an absolute right, it is a balancing freedom of expression, the right to privacy and data protection, and the public interest.
Next >>