Deleting content was never the point. I believe they kinda are trying to emulate the world previous to Google. Let's say you had your assets sold to pay debts. That might be known publicly. In some countries it could happen that they publish the auction advert on a newspaper. The auction was public, your family and some neighborhoods might know about it. It was a bad phase of your life. Then you recovered. You have straighten out your life. Some people that knew you back then would still remember about your past problems, most of them didn't care about them anyway. They had "forgotten", but they still knew about it if asked. But it just wasn't a relevant topic anymore. Most people you know afterwards didn't know about that. But the records are there. If they go to search the seizures (I don't know how it's called in english) records or some debts records, they will find your name there. The information is there, kinda buried, but not deleted.
In a world after Google, this no longer works like that. People will google your name, and very old things can come up. (In this EU decision we are only talking about personal data information that nowadays is, accordingly to the court, "inaccurate, inadequate or irrelevant". So here you have two options: Either you say Google changed the way things work, and you have to face every your mistake that is mentioned in the web, even if inaccurate, inadequate or irrelevant. Pay for your mistakes, handle it, grow up. (everyone's opinion here but mine); Or you can say that on such cases, you do have the right to ask Google to hide that content (my and EU's court opinion). You see, it's not about the content itself. If it was a piece of newspapper, it could have followed every law about its publishing and to be perfectly legal. Absolutely no legal question about the criteria of the newspaper publishing it, everything by the book. And yet, I defend that after some time, under the mentioned conditions, you have the right not to have that content showing up just because someones googles your name. It's not of their business, it was your personal life, personal problems. You can't delete them from History (from the original content - from the records - from the newspapper), you don't have that right - that would be censorship. You can just kind of buried in the past. But anyone who really got into the trouble would get access to this history of yours, because it's still there. You just deserve that is doesn't show up in easy accessed Google for every single person who just checks you out of curiosity.
So what is the source? Have your read the court decision? What was based on?
If this was a "right to be erased" case, they would go directly to the font. It doesn't go that far. It's the right to be forgotten (aka not having an event that nowadays is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive to come up when someone googles your name). It's not about the newspaper (or whatever) who published the story, it's about any website that agglomerates information on a topic and that topic is you. That's called personal data, and Google handles it, not the website/newspapper that has the piece of story you don't like. No one will bother newspapers, just search engines because they easily can associate personal data of yours with your name. But you are only allowed to "hide" the content on very strict cases.
Forgotten - Kind of let things die by themselves. Not delete them, but neither give them the importance that they no longer have; right to not having your name related to events that nowadays are inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant. Example: The spanish guy who had his assets sold 16 years ago to pay his debts, and still that showed up in Google first results. The story will still be there if people search for it. But it won't come out as the first (or last) thing when searching his name.
(If it were) Erased - A right where you would have the power to erase all or some content on the source itself. (Much stronger)
One more reason why this will not be used a lot. The case in court was from 16 years ago (!!!). The content was still there. Maybe the person just didn't have any more personal data showing up on the web, and wanted to delete that one (that he never put there anyway).
I see what is your point, the EU just strongly disagrees with it. It's not relevant how Google or their bots work. When it comes do personal data, you have rights over that data. Content changes only if there is newer content. By other words, it doesn't actually change, just more content is added. Creating (artificial?) content just to dissimulate the content you don't want to appear is not a solution. You don't have to give more of your personal data just to hide the data you don't want there is the first place. Either 1) this is considered a Right, defensible in court, so it's irrelevant how Google works, it has to comply. Or 2) the State should have no business in how Google works, so your last hope is indeed your suggestion.
In EU it's 1), in US it's 2). You can either defend position 1) or position 2). But the fact that results change does not help in the discussion of how right or wrong is position 1.
Should people have the right over their personal data, in an extension that would allow them to ask Google to hide content in their name searches, when such content is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data Google collects? That's the question, in my dubious but best-i-can-do legalese xD
Sure, it would. But it isn't. Deleting the link is the exception. Not delete it is the rule. Just check the conditions that have to be met in order to the request to be accepted.
Well, that's your opinion. But if you don't explain, iyo, what is really about or why it isn't about privacy, we will be here saying "it is" and "it isn't" all night long.
They are not exceptions. In order to be exceptions, you would need a law that stated, for example: "you have the right to ask google to delete your name from every old articles / news". Then the law would create such exceptions: criminals, celebrities, and subjects of public interest can't use this right.
If this is what you think it's going on (I think most of you actually do), it's just wrong. What the court did was allow a privacy law to be applied on a very specific case (not a celebrity, not a criminal, not even illegal). And it further said: "Individuals have the right - under certain conditions - of ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing (para 93 of the ruling). The court found that in this particular case the interference with a person’s right to data protection could not be justified merely by the economic interest of the search engine. At the same time, the Court explicitly larified that the right to be forgotten is not absolute but will always need to be balanced against other undamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and of the media (para 85 of the ruling). A case-by-case assessment is needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life and the interest of the public in having access to that nformation. The role the person requesting the deletion plays in public life might also be relevant.
What many of you are doing here is just read the title, and forget about the content. "You can delete your information on certain conditions" - You don't care about what conditions are those, and just read "in Europe they are allowing people to censorship their information on Google and government censorship should be about to return very soon". You don't have to agree with it, you just could try to read it first.
Funny how you don't give a shit about what the laws say, and yet here you are discussing how right or wrong they are.
Ohh, the famous american argument for something you don't agree to: "that is communist!". I missed it already.
I tried to go a little deeper on both the law and this decision. In order to try to explain that details matter. After all that, you came here with that text. Have you even read what I said? It's like If I was here complaining about how stupid americans are because they give everyone a gun, but I refuse to listen when someone tries to explain* me the inner details, historic (and constitutional) reasons, or that it doesn't happen freely in every state (just an example, don't take it too seriously), and I just keep shouting "it's stupid, it's american, what to expect..."
That's where your argument level is. Congrats.
(*note: explaining things not to try to convince me, but just to tell me how it really is)
Well, it's true that I may have used "private" and "personal" in a not very distinct way. Partially because I'm not english native. I meant private as it belonged to his privacy. The decision use the "privacy" word a lot, just 2 examples: "Directive 95/46 which, according to Article 1, has the object of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data". "the data subject may oppose the indexing by a search engine of personal data relating to him where their dissemination through the search engine is prejudicial to him and his fundamental rights to the protection of those data and to privacy — which encompass the ‘right to be forgotten’ — override the legitimate interests of the operator of the search engine and the general interest in freedom of information." But, again, don't take my word for it. Read the decision before you state this has nothing to do with privacy. It does, it's about privacy laws, it's a decision based on the right to privacy of a citizen. You can disagree with the decision and how the court analyzed the case, but the court handled it as a privacy case.
Well, if Adolf Hitler can prove his personal data is there without a good reason for it, because there is no public interest on it, he is not even a known person, he never did anything illegal or notorious, he might have a case. Else, your example is just stupid.
Personal data is always personal, no matter how many people/companies handle it, or if it is published or not. And the person who that personal data belongs to, has certain rights related to his data.
But don't trust my word. Here, have fun:
Article 2 Definitions For the purposes of this Directive: (a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;
(c) 'personal data filing system' ('filing system') shall mean any structured set of personal data which are accessible according to specific criteria, whether centralized, decentralized or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis;
(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
(f) 'third party' shall mean any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body other than the data subject, the controller, the processor and the persons who, under the direct authority of the controller or the processor, are authorized to process the data;
(g) 'recipient' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body to whom data are disclosed, whether a third party or not; however, authorities which may receive data in the framework of a particular inquiry shall not be regarded as recipients;
(h) 'the data subject's consent' shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed.
Well, accordingly to the law, they do handle personal data, no matter how it is collected. And accordingly with EU court too. You may disagree with it, but that's where we are. The article in the website may have your name, but it does not manage private data of yours. Google does, by collecting your information from pretty much everywhere on the Internet. That's not a third party. It's not a third party just because they use bots to organize the information.
I strongly disagree with your theory. They do this because we have (as far as I can see) decent privacy protection laws. It's a good thing, not bad.
it isn't, they do handle personal data, so they have to fulfill this obligations related to that. And this is not about erasing content. Jesus. Again: this is not a right to erase content. Neither is about deleting all outdated information because it's outdated information. How did you come up with that?
Well, you do need to review this subject because there are a lot of things you say that are just imagination, and don't correspond to the reality.
The EU court had this decision about a spanish person who had his assets sold 16 years ago to pay debts to social security. Why the hell does this have to be the first result everyone gets when searches his name nowadays? It was 16 years ago! Old story, private problems, absolute no public interest on it. The only question here is that you - or anyone - might want to know that just for the sake of having the possibility to know everything from everybody. Because Internet is considered to be the Big Brother you are used to, and you think you have the right to know all things from everybody. Actually you don't. Private data is called private for some reason. And EU legislation is strict about privacy. In this case, the matter was outdated, it had happened many years ago, and there was no public interest on it (don't mix public interest concept with pure gossip / intrigue).
So every case you bring about celebrities, state persons, politics, etc. is not under the same protection, they are not analogue cases. Neither are illegal activities.
@the people who talked about VPNs, proxies, and other ways around: That's not the point. We ALL know that Google doesn't have the original information, it just aglomerates information from websites, and that original information will not be erased from the websites. We also know there are many ways around to search for a person online. Again, the purpose of this is not erase public information, is to control private data that is no longer relevant, is outdated, doesn't have public interest, and therefore the person has the right to have it forgotten.
@ all the people who don't agree this should be handled by Google: This was handled as a personal privacy case. The newspapper article doesn't handle your personal information just because is has a piece with your name. They follow they own rules and they have (journalistic related) laws to fulfill too, of course. But usually a website won't manage your personal information just because it refers your name in an article. Google does. Google is exactly what law describes as a collector of personal data, and therefore it has to fulfill the obligations that everyone who handles personal data have. Simple as that.
Actually we do. In Europe. Not even a matter of discussion ;) Well, Google doesn't talk, I find it awkward to fight for his free speech right. I would say it's a question of right to information. No Google's, but every people's right to information. Still, it can be restrict, as long as the restriction is justified. Rights are always in conflict with each others, and everytime a judge or a parliament acts on such case, one right is restricted. In this case, it's very clear to us in Europe which one should be restricted :)
Again, I'm failing to explain you the difference between having some old archived newspaper page with your name and event X, and event X being the first thing that comes in Google when someone searches for your name. Every single time your name comes associated with an old and outdated event that doesn't have any public interest on it (anymore). And you can't do anything about it? Does that sounds right? Do you really thing they are similar situations?
Also, check Googles policy here: https://www.google.pt/policies/faq/ They explain the evaluation process they do, between public interest vs the right to be forgotten.
I'm not sure the event X will not appear if you search PERSON NAME + EVENT X, but they will sure not appear if you search for the Person Name alone.
Can't you see the difference? Of course there were newspapers, of course there were records. They just don't haunt us for the rest of our lives. Yes, you can do all that and get the record or the newspapper paper, because they are not erased. Forgotten =/= Erased. Like in this case no one is erasing anything. But we have the right that Google doesn't associate us permanently with that bad event as the first thing that come up when anybody searches our name. We don't delete things, they will still be there, he just have the right of being "let alone". It's not of your business if (or how) I overcome (or have dealt with) my old problems. Big brother may sound interesting and tempting, but it's awful.
(I double commented by mistake, can someone please delete the other one? Thanks).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Eduardo.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How Google Works
Please check my answer here too: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141006/02274528742/right-to-be-forgotten-hits-ny-times.shtml#c11 40
Deleting content was never the point. I believe they kinda are trying to emulate the world previous to Google. Let's say you had your assets sold to pay debts. That might be known publicly. In some countries it could happen that they publish the auction advert on a newspaper. The auction was public, your family and some neighborhoods might know about it. It was a bad phase of your life. Then you recovered. You have straighten out your life. Some people that knew you back then would still remember about your past problems, most of them didn't care about them anyway. They had "forgotten", but they still knew about it if asked. But it just wasn't a relevant topic anymore. Most people you know afterwards didn't know about that. But the records are there. If they go to search the seizures (I don't know how it's called in english) records or some debts records, they will find your name there. The information is there, kinda buried, but not deleted.
In a world after Google, this no longer works like that. People will google your name, and very old things can come up. (In this EU decision we are only talking about personal data information that nowadays is, accordingly to the court, "inaccurate, inadequate or irrelevant".
So here you have two options:
Either you say Google changed the way things work, and you have to face every your mistake that is mentioned in the web, even if inaccurate, inadequate or irrelevant. Pay for your mistakes, handle it, grow up. (everyone's opinion here but mine); Or you can say that on such cases, you do have the right to ask Google to hide that content (my and EU's court opinion). You see, it's not about the content itself. If it was a piece of newspapper, it could have followed every law about its publishing and to be perfectly legal. Absolutely no legal question about the criteria of the newspaper publishing it, everything by the book. And yet, I defend that after some time, under the mentioned conditions, you have the right not to have that content showing up just because someones googles your name. It's not of their business, it was your personal life, personal problems. You can't delete them from History (from the original content - from the records - from the newspapper), you don't have that right - that would be censorship. You can just kind of buried in the past.
But anyone who really got into the trouble would get access to this history of yours, because it's still there. You just deserve that is doesn't show up in easy accessed Google for every single person who just checks you out of curiosity.
Re: Why can't people go to the source?
If this was a "right to be erased" case, they would go directly to the font. It doesn't go that far. It's the right to be forgotten (aka not having an event that nowadays is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive to come up when someone googles your name). It's not about the newspaper (or whatever) who published the story, it's about any website that agglomerates information on a topic and that topic is you. That's called personal data, and Google handles it, not the website/newspapper that has the piece of story you don't like. No one will bother newspapers, just search engines because they easily can associate personal data of yours with your name. But you are only allowed to "hide" the content on very strict cases.
Forgotten - Kind of let things die by themselves. Not delete them, but neither give them the importance that they no longer have; right to not having your name related to events that nowadays are inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant. Example: The spanish guy who had his assets sold 16 years ago to pay his debts, and still that showed up in Google first results. The story will still be there if people search for it. But it won't come out as the first (or last) thing when searching his name.
(If it were) Erased - A right where you would have the power to erase all or some content on the source itself. (Much stronger)
Re: Re: How Google Works
I see what is your point, the EU just strongly disagrees with it. It's not relevant how Google or their bots work. When it comes do personal data, you have rights over that data. Content changes only if there is newer content. By other words, it doesn't actually change, just more content is added.
Creating (artificial?) content just to dissimulate the content you don't want to appear is not a solution. You don't have to give more of your personal data just to hide the data you don't want there is the first place.
Either 1) this is considered a Right, defensible in court, so it's irrelevant how Google works, it has to comply. Or 2) the State should have no business in how Google works, so your last hope is indeed your suggestion.
In EU it's 1), in US it's 2). You can either defend position 1) or position 2). But the fact that results change does not help in the discussion of how right or wrong is position 1.
Should people have the right over their personal data, in an extension that would allow them to ask Google to hide content in their name searches, when such content is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data Google collects?
That's the question, in my dubious but best-i-can-do legalese xD
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
If this is what you think it's going on (I think most of you actually do), it's just wrong. What the court did was allow a privacy law to be applied on a very specific case (not a celebrity, not a criminal, not even illegal). And it further said:
"Individuals have the right - under certain conditions - of ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing (para 93 of the ruling). The court found that in this particular case the interference with a person’s right to data protection could not be justified merely by the economic interest of the search engine. At the same time, the Court explicitly larified that the right to be forgotten is not absolute
but will always need to be balanced against other undamental rights, such as the freedom of expression and of the media (para 85 of the ruling). A case-by-case assessment
is needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life and the interest of the public in having access to that nformation. The role the person requesting the deletion plays in public life might also be relevant.
From here: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf
What many of you are doing here is just read the title, and forget about the content. "You can delete your information on certain conditions" - You don't care about what conditions are those, and just read "in Europe they are allowing people to censorship their information on Google and government censorship should be about to return very soon".
You don't have to agree with it, you just could try to read it first.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ohh, the famous american argument for something you don't agree to: "that is communist!". I missed it already.
I tried to go a little deeper on both the law and this decision. In order to try to explain that details matter.
After all that, you came here with that text. Have you even read what I said?
It's like If I was here complaining about how stupid americans are because they give everyone a gun, but I refuse to listen when someone tries to explain* me the inner details, historic (and constitutional) reasons, or that it doesn't happen freely in every state (just an example, don't take it too seriously), and I just keep shouting "it's stupid, it's american, what to expect..."
That's where your argument level is. Congrats.
(*note: explaining things not to try to convince me, but just to tell me how it really is)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Directive 95/46 which, according to Article 1, has the object of protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy with respect to the processing of personal data".
"the data subject may oppose the indexing by a search engine of personal data relating to him where their dissemination through the search engine is prejudicial to him and his fundamental rights to the protection of those data and to privacy — which encompass the ‘right to be forgotten’ — override the legitimate interests of the operator of the search engine and the general interest in freedom of information."
But, again, don't take my word for it. Read the decision before you state this has nothing to do with privacy.
It does, it's about privacy laws, it's a decision based on the right to privacy of a citizen. You can disagree with the decision and how the court analyzed the case, but the court handled it as a privacy case.
(untitled comment)
Else, your example is just stupid.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But don't trust my word. Here, have fun:
Article 2
Definitions
For the purposes of this Directive:
(a) 'personal data' shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('data subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;
(b) 'processing of personal data' ('processing') shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;
(c) 'personal data filing system' ('filing system') shall mean any structured set of personal data which are accessible according to specific criteria, whether centralized, decentralized or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis;
(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;
(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;
(f) 'third party' shall mean any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body other than the data subject, the controller, the processor and the persons who, under the direct authority of the controller or the processor, are authorized to process the data;
(g) 'recipient' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body to whom data are disclosed, whether a third party or not; however, authorities which may receive data in the framework of a particular inquiry shall not be regarded as recipients;
(h) 'the data subject's consent' shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I strongly disagree with your theory. They do this because we have (as far as I can see) decent privacy protection laws. It's a good thing, not bad.
Re: strange
full doc: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130d5d175fdbfddfd4cd89013bdda10 4ae9a3.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4OaNmNe0?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode =req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=401734
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The EU court had this decision about a spanish person who had his assets sold 16 years ago to pay debts to social security. Why the hell does this have to be the first result everyone gets when searches his name nowadays? It was 16 years ago! Old story, private problems, absolute no public interest on it. The only question here is that you - or anyone - might want to know that just for the sake of having the possibility to know everything from everybody. Because Internet is considered to be the Big Brother you are used to, and you think you have the right to know all things from everybody. Actually you don't. Private data is called private for some reason. And EU legislation is strict about privacy. In this case, the matter was outdated, it had happened many years ago, and there was no public interest on it (don't mix public interest concept with pure gossip / intrigue).
So every case you bring about celebrities, state persons, politics, etc. is not under the same protection, they are not analogue cases. Neither are illegal activities.
@the people who talked about VPNs, proxies, and other ways around: That's not the point. We ALL know that Google doesn't have the original information, it just aglomerates information from websites, and that original information will not be erased from the websites. We also know there are many ways around to search for a person online. Again, the purpose of this is not erase public information, is to control private data that is no longer relevant, is outdated, doesn't have public interest, and therefore the person has the right to have it forgotten.
@ all the people who don't agree this should be handled by Google:
This was handled as a personal privacy case. The newspapper article doesn't handle your personal information just because is has a piece with your name. They follow they own rules and they have (journalistic related) laws to fulfill too, of course. But usually a website won't manage your personal information just because it refers your name in an article.
Google does. Google is exactly what law describes as a collector of personal data, and therefore it has to fulfill the obligations that everyone who handles personal data have. Simple as that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, Google doesn't talk, I find it awkward to fight for his free speech right. I would say it's a question of right to information. No Google's, but every people's right to information. Still, it can be restrict, as long as the restriction is justified. Rights are always in conflict with each others, and everytime a judge or a parliament acts on such case, one right is restricted. In this case, it's very clear to us in Europe which one should be restricted :)
Again, I'm failing to explain you the difference between having some old archived newspaper page with your name and event X, and event X being the first thing that comes in Google when someone searches for your name. Every single time your name comes associated with an old and outdated event that doesn't have any public interest on it (anymore). And you can't do anything about it? Does that sounds right?
Do you really thing they are similar situations?
Also, check Googles policy here:
https://www.google.pt/policies/faq/
They explain the evaluation process they do, between public interest vs the right to be forgotten.
I'm not sure the event X will not appear if you search PERSON NAME + EVENT X, but they will sure not appear if you search for the Person Name alone.
Re: Re:
(I double commented by mistake, can someone please delete the other one? Thanks).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Eduardo.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt