Privacy Part 2: The Right to Be Forgotten - Revision history

Andy at 18:05, 18 March 2015

2015-03-18T18:05:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, 18 March 2015
Line 10:		Line 10:

	'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Final_Project_overview.pdf Download slides from this week's class]''' (the slides this week are solely from the first half hour of class, where we talked about the final project)		'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Final_Project_overview.pdf Download slides from this week's class]''' (the slides this week are solely from the first half hour of class, where we talked about the final project)

			<onlyinclude>

	==Readings==		==Readings==
Line 30:		Line 32:

	* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]		* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]

			</onlyinclude>

	==Links from Class==		==Links from Class==

Mhoching: /* Class Discussion */

2015-03-04T15:46:34Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 4 March 2015
Line 340:		Line 340:

	----		----

			A great piece done by NPR on the "right ot be forgotten" and the recent fad of memes. It's interesting how these keep popping up on my feed. http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/03/03/390463119/internet-memes-and-the-right-to-be-forgotten?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150303

			[[User:Mhoching\|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching\|talk]]) 10:46, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Ryan: /* Links from Class */ added links

2015-02-26T21:05:25Z

Links from Class: added links

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 26 February 2015
Line 32:		Line 32:

	==Links from Class==		==Links from Class==
			Online Intermediaries Project: https://publixphere.net/i/noc/category/136

			Chilling Effects: https://www.chillingeffects.org

			Berkman Center's H2O platform: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/h2o

			EU ECJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Justice

			Great post on definition of "public figure" in US: http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm

			US Census standards for releasing personal information: http://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy.html

			Berkman paper on online intermediaries in the US (co-written by Adam Holland, Andy Sellars, Ryan Budish, among others): https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/OI_Case_Study_Intermediary_Liability_in_the_United_States

			Here's the advisory opinion prior to RTBF ruling: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=138782&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=362663

			DMLP post summarizing the advisory opinion: http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/cjeu-advocate-general-finds-no-right-be-forgotten-search-engines-under-eu-law

			List of search engines: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/

			Data on Google's RTBF requests: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/europeprivacy/

			A very, very technical paper about search neutrality: http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs286r/courses/fall09/papers/altman_jair.pdf

			A very early blog post (way before this case) proposed a few frameworks for the "right to be forgotten": http://peterfleischer.blogspot.com/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html

			“When something online is free, you’re not the customer, you’re the product”: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/futureoftheinternet/2012/03/21/meme-patrol-when-something-online-is-free-youre-not-the-customer-youre-the-product/

	==Class Discussion==		==Class Discussion==

Ryan: Adding section on links

2015-02-26T20:59:14Z

Adding section on links

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 26 February 2015
Line 30:		Line 30:

	* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]		* [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf EU Data Protection Working Party, Guidelines on the Implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on Google Spain] and accompanying [http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-release/art29_press_material/20141126_wp29_press_release_ecj_de-listing.pdf press release]

			==Links from Class==


	==Class Discussion==		==Class Discussion==

Kelly.wilson: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-25T14:33:38Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 25 February 2015
Line 297:		Line 297:
	I remember reading about the "right to forget" last year and being completely stunned by the European Court’s ruling and I put myself squarely in the anti-right-to-forget camp. But after these readings I’m not so sure. I now see the need for a right like this to exist but I still wholeheartedly disagree with the quasi-judicial power the ruling grants Google.		I remember reading about the "right to forget" last year and being completely stunned by the European Court’s ruling and I put myself squarely in the anti-right-to-forget camp. But after these readings I’m not so sure. I now see the need for a right like this to exist but I still wholeheartedly disagree with the quasi-judicial power the ruling grants Google.

	On an individual level, forgetting – to some extent – is part of being a healthy human being; it’s part of learning to cope with life and survive; it even allows us to make room for new information. I wonder if on a societal level, some amount of forgetting is healthy as well. Not the big things like the Holocaust of course, but ~~allthe~~ minutia – like an 18-year old getting caught with a gram or the gruesome death of ~~someone’s daughter~~.		On an individual level, forgetting – to some extent – is part of being a healthy human being; it’s part of learning to cope with life and survive; it even allows us to make room for new information. I wonder if on a societal level, some amount of forgetting is healthy as well. Not the big things like the Holocaust of course, but all the minutia – like an 18-year old getting caught with a gram or the gruesome death of a child.

	The internet makes forgetting very difficult. It makes second chances hard to come across. And that’s upsetting but, for me at least, it’s not as upsetting as a businessman getting Google to erase links to evidence of him being a tax avoider. Because we’re dealing with ~~fact~~. And there’s just no clear test to decide what facts belongs in the private sphere and what facts deserves to be in the public sphere. The court certainly didn’t ~~help,~~ and Google is in no position to be the decider.		The internet makes forgetting very difficult. It makes second chances hard to come across. And that’s upsetting but, for me at least, it’s not as upsetting as a businessman getting Google to erase links to evidence of him being a tax avoider. Because we’re dealing with facts. And there’s just no clear test to decide what facts belongs in the private sphere and what facts deserves to be in the public sphere. The court certainly didn’t give helpful guidance and Google is in no position to be the decider.

	If the “right to forget” ever became an issue in the US and Google was deemed the appropriate fielder, I might argue that Google is a legal person with first amendment rights and that Google’s unique form of expression is posting search results and so requiring Google to alter search results is a violation of the speech clause of the first amendment.		If the “right to forget” ever became an issue in the US and Google was deemed the appropriate fielder, I might argue that Google is a legal person with first amendment rights and that Google’s unique form of expression is posting search results and so requiring Google to alter search results is a violation of the speech clause of the first amendment.

Andy at 00:43, 25 February 2015

2015-02-25T00:43:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 25 February 2015
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Our guest this week is Berkman staffer [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who oversees the operations of several projects, including [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects], which tracks legal threats against online speech.		Our guest this week is Berkman staffer [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/aholland Adam Holland], who oversees the operations of several projects, including [https://www.chillingeffects.org/ Chilling Effects], which tracks legal threats against online speech.

			'''[http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is2015/sites/is2015/images/Final_Project_overview.pdf Download slides from this week's class]''' (the slides this week are solely from the first half hour of class, where we talked about the final project)

	==Readings==		==Readings==

Andy: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-24T21:55:42Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 24 February 2015
Line 32:		Line 32:

	<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy\|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>		<div style="background-color:#CCCCCC;">Please remember to sign your postings by adding four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to the end of your contribution. This will automatically add your username and the date/time of your post, like so: [[User:Andy\|Andy]] 15:12, 7 November 2013 (EST)</div>

	~~----~~

	I had not heard of the "right to be forgotten" before this class, so I'm a bit amazed that it exists. Before the Internet (and now) there were journals, history books, notes, law cases, family bibles, photos, TV recordings, radio recordings not to mention newspaper stories. Yes, looking people up on all of those materials is somewhat more daunting than a "Google" search, but it can be done, and it is still done by those with a dogged determination to look into people's pasts.

	There are no ways to remove oneself from history books. What is a matter of public record is still public record. Why is the internet treated differently from any other form of public dissemination? Private organizations catalog and index public records in their own "search engines" most of which can also be searched online from their websites. You would spend years going after all the various resources that have a copy of that information. Sure, it would take longer as the information may not be there at the flick of a few key strokes, but it's still there.

	Bottom line for me, and I embrace the Internet's power wholeheartedly for I am a distance student after all, is that I find it ridiculously naive to think that if you win a case getting Google to remove a link, that now no one can ever find that bad information about you and suddenly you are pure. I also do not like this law as now you can play havoc with History. What we do today reflects on us 100 years from now. Did it happen? Or did it not?

	~~[[User:ErikaLRich\|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich\|talk]]) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (EST)~~

	----		----
Line 197:		Line 187:

	Tasha[[User:Tasha\|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha\|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)		Tasha[[User:Tasha\|Tasha]] ([[User talk:Tasha\|talk]]) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)


	----		----


	Hello, everyone.		Hello, everyone.
Line 212:		Line 204:
	Finally, regardless of your opinion on the actual RTBF, how do you feel about historical preservation of the affected URLs and the decisions made affecting them? Is it all right to memory-hole those? If we need to preserve the historical record, who should do it, and in what way, and who should be allowed to study the data?		Finally, regardless of your opinion on the actual RTBF, how do you feel about historical preservation of the affected URLs and the decisions made affecting them? Is it all right to memory-hole those? If we need to preserve the historical record, who should do it, and in what way, and who should be allowed to study the data?
	[[User:Aholland\|Aholland]] ([[User talk:Aholland\|talk]]) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Aholland\|Aholland]] ([[User talk:Aholland\|talk]]) 14:58, 24 February 2015 (EST)


	----		----


	This week’s readings pose a very true and real threat that we will find ourselves with the explosion and utilization of social media outlets. The reality is that the Internet is not going away, and neither is the majorly popular resources and engines like Google. The “right to be forgotten” seems like an idea that would work in theory, but in practice, has so many faults. With Europe taking the first attempt at this conflict, and somewhat failing, it’s only a matter of time before other bigger superpowers will begin to have to address this. Jeff Rosen writes, “Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice.” And although this may be true, I don’t think any abstract idea of regulating can be properly implemented with ideas such as limiting or regulating the Internet.		This week’s readings pose a very true and real threat that we will find ourselves with the explosion and utilization of social media outlets. The reality is that the Internet is not going away, and neither is the majorly popular resources and engines like Google. The “right to be forgotten” seems like an idea that would work in theory, but in practice, has so many faults. With Europe taking the first attempt at this conflict, and somewhat failing, it’s only a matter of time before other bigger superpowers will begin to have to address this. Jeff Rosen writes, “Europeans have a long tradition of declaring abstract privacy rights in theory that they fail to enforce in practice.” And although this may be true, I don’t think any abstract idea of regulating can be properly implemented with ideas such as limiting or regulating the Internet.
	I think that the general rules put forth by the E.U. to attempt to regulate such cases is putting the onus on an data driven engine to be accountable for actions by an individual who was neither forced to do those actions or in any other way coerced to take part in the actions. In the example Rosen presented, of a young girl caught in a picture with a beer. The government is holding the website accountable for something the young girl a.) Should not have been doing b.) Been apart of actions that would capture such activieis.		I think that the general rules put forth by the E.U. to attempt to regulate such cases is putting the onus on an data driven engine to be accountable for actions by an individual who was neither forced to do those actions or in any other way coerced to take part in the actions. In the example Rosen presented, of a young girl caught in a picture with a beer. The government is holding the website accountable for something the young girl a.) Should not have been doing b.) Been apart of actions that would capture such activieis.
Line 219:		Line 214:
	Jonathan Zittrain does a beautiful job of illustrating the answer and ways in which solutions can be explored. In his 2014 article, “Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’” he claims that the E.U. is not necessarily wrong in their worries, but their approach and implementation is something to be desired. I believe Zittrain is correct and captures it perfectly when he says, “Whatever the solution, the status quo is no longer stable. In the wake of the decision by the European Court of Justice, search engine companies now face a potential avalanche of requests for redaction.”		Jonathan Zittrain does a beautiful job of illustrating the answer and ways in which solutions can be explored. In his 2014 article, “Don’t Force Google to ‘Forget’” he claims that the E.U. is not necessarily wrong in their worries, but their approach and implementation is something to be desired. I believe Zittrain is correct and captures it perfectly when he says, “Whatever the solution, the status quo is no longer stable. In the wake of the decision by the European Court of Justice, search engine companies now face a potential avalanche of requests for redaction.”
	[[User:Mhoching\|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching\|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Mhoching\|Mhoching]] ([[User talk:Mhoching\|talk]]) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (EST)


	----		----


			I had not heard of the "right to be forgotten" before this class, so I'm a bit amazed that it exists. Before the Internet (and now) there were journals, history books, notes, law cases, family bibles, photos, TV recordings, radio recordings not to mention newspaper stories. Yes, looking people up on all of those materials is somewhat more daunting than a "Google" search, but it can be done, and it is still done by those with a dogged determination to look into people's pasts.

			There are no ways to remove oneself from history books. What is a matter of public record is still public record. Why is the internet treated differently from any other form of public dissemination? Private organizations catalog and index public records in their own "search engines" most of which can also be searched online from their websites. You would spend years going after all the various resources that have a copy of that information. Sure, it would take longer as the information may not be there at the flick of a few key strokes, but it's still there.

			Bottom line for me, and I embrace the Internet's power wholeheartedly for I am a distance student after all, is that I find it ridiculously naive to think that if you win a case getting Google to remove a link, that now no one can ever find that bad information about you and suddenly you are pure. I also do not like this law as now you can play havoc with History. What we do today reflects on us 100 years from now. Did it happen? Or did it not?

			[[User:ErikaLRich\|ErikaLRich]] ([[User talk:ErikaLRich\|talk]]) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (EST)



	In light of European Court of Justice's ruling about "the right to be forgotten", this subject is becoming more and more important in this so-called 'age of data':how do we balance individual privacy rights vs. public right to be informed? I'm looking forward to see how the ECJ ruling affects internet users in Europe.		In light of European Court of Justice's ruling about "the right to be forgotten", this subject is becoming more and more important in this so-called 'age of data':how do we balance individual privacy rights vs. public right to be informed? I'm looking forward to see how the ECJ ruling affects internet users in Europe.

Line 226:		Line 234:

	[[User:Rpeisch\|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch\|talk]]) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Rpeisch\|Rpeisch]] ([[User talk:Rpeisch\|talk]]) 15:19, 24 February 2015 (EST)


	----		----


	In reading the Google Spain case (Costeja decision) material, I could not help thinking about the privacy and free speech interests underlying the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). These laws seem to have some of the same interests at stake as the interests in being forgotten represented by Costeha		In reading the Google Spain case (Costeja decision) material, I could not help thinking about the privacy and free speech interests underlying the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). These laws seem to have some of the same interests at stake as the interests in being forgotten represented by Costeha

Line 240:		Line 252:

	[[User:Gary Brown\|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown\|talk]]) 15:43, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Gary Brown\|Gary Brown]] ([[User talk:Gary Brown\|talk]]) 15:43, 24 February 2015 (EST)


	----		----


	Hi guys,		Hi guys,
	Bummed not to be able to make it to class tonight, but I’m over at the Kennedy School doing a Forum with the former President of Finland (who in all honesty would probably have some interesting thoughts on tonight’s topic).		Bummed not to be able to make it to class tonight, but I’m over at the Kennedy School doing a Forum with the former President of Finland (who in all honesty would probably have some interesting thoughts on tonight’s topic).
Line 248:		Line 264:
	I’d be interested though to hear some thoughts in tonight’s class about Zittrain’s suggestions for more creative search engines and the use of apologies for censored information. While in no way perfect, it seems like this may be a constructive way to move forward?		I’d be interested though to hear some thoughts in tonight’s class about Zittrain’s suggestions for more creative search engines and the use of apologies for censored information. While in no way perfect, it seems like this may be a constructive way to move forward?
	[[User:Meredithmblake\|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake\|talk]]) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Meredithmblake\|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake\|talk]]) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (EST)
	---------~~---------------------~~

			----


			:If President Halonen would like to come chat about this with us please feel free to invite her! :-) [[User:Andy\|Andy]] ([[User talk:Andy\|talk]]) 16:55, 24 February 2015 (EST)


			----


	Hello everyone,		Hello everyone,
Line 264:		Line 289:
	(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~) Edwin Duque		(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~) Edwin Duque

	~~___~~
			----


	I remember reading about the "right to forget" last year and being completely stunned by the European Court’s ruling and I put myself squarely in the anti-right-to-forget camp. But after these readings I’m not so sure. I now see the need for a right like this to exist but I still wholeheartedly disagree with the quasi-judicial power the ruling grants Google.		I remember reading about the "right to forget" last year and being completely stunned by the European Court’s ruling and I put myself squarely in the anti-right-to-forget camp. But after these readings I’m not so sure. I now see the need for a right like this to exist but I still wholeheartedly disagree with the quasi-judicial power the ruling grants Google.
Line 280:		Line 307:
	[[User:Kelly.wilson\|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson\|talk]]) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Kelly.wilson\|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson\|talk]]) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (EST)

	~~---------------------~~----
			----

Kelly.wilson: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-24T21:42:12Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 24 February 2015
Line 263:		Line 263:

	(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~) Edwin Duque		(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~) Edwin Duque

			___

			I remember reading about the "right to forget" last year and being completely stunned by the European Court’s ruling and I put myself squarely in the anti-right-to-forget camp. But after these readings I’m not so sure. I now see the need for a right like this to exist but I still wholeheartedly disagree with the quasi-judicial power the ruling grants Google.

			On an individual level, forgetting – to some extent – is part of being a healthy human being; it’s part of learning to cope with life and survive; it even allows us to make room for new information. I wonder if on a societal level, some amount of forgetting is healthy as well. Not the big things like the Holocaust of course, but allthe minutia – like an 18-year old getting caught with a gram or the gruesome death of someone’s daughter.

			The internet makes forgetting very difficult. It makes second chances hard to come across. And that’s upsetting but, for me at least, it’s not as upsetting as a businessman getting Google to erase links to evidence of him being a tax avoider. Because we’re dealing with fact. And there’s just no clear test to decide what facts belongs in the private sphere and what facts deserves to be in the public sphere. The court certainly didn’t help, and Google is in no position to be the decider.

			If the “right to forget” ever became an issue in the US and Google was deemed the appropriate fielder, I might argue that Google is a legal person with first amendment rights and that Google’s unique form of expression is posting search results and so requiring Google to alter search results is a violation of the speech clause of the first amendment.

			But here’s a crazy thought, what happens if Google stops being the premier search engine? When it loses its supremacy? Then the European Court’s decision to outsource the problem to Google seems short-sighted. Ultimately it seems like need to keep refining its wisdom on this topic, taking it case by case, until a more lasting and reliable precedent emerges.

			This topic makes my head spin a little. Excited to talk about it more with y’all!

			[[User:Kelly.wilson\|Kelly.wilson]] ([[User talk:Kelly.wilson\|talk]]) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (EST)

			-------------------------

Edwinduque: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-24T21:19:06Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:19, 24 February 2015
Line 262:		Line 262:
	Nonetheless, this is a latent problem and needs proper resolution, for this reason, I think that the right to be forgotten is and will be very important in our lives as technology evolves, we cannot let technology run our privacy matters but automation, but we need to be active participants of our evolving future.		Nonetheless, this is a latent problem and needs proper resolution, for this reason, I think that the right to be forgotten is and will be very important in our lives as technology evolves, we cannot let technology run our privacy matters but automation, but we need to be active participants of our evolving future.

	(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~)		(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~) Edwin Duque

Edwinduque: /* Class Discussion */

2015-02-24T21:18:18Z

Class Discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:18, 24 February 2015
Line 248:		Line 248:
	I’d be interested though to hear some thoughts in tonight’s class about Zittrain’s suggestions for more creative search engines and the use of apologies for censored information. While in no way perfect, it seems like this may be a constructive way to move forward?		I’d be interested though to hear some thoughts in tonight’s class about Zittrain’s suggestions for more creative search engines and the use of apologies for censored information. While in no way perfect, it seems like this may be a constructive way to move forward?
	[[User:Meredithmblake\|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake\|talk]]) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (EST)		[[User:Meredithmblake\|Meredith]] ([[User talk:Meredithmblake\|talk]]) 16:01, 24 February 2015 (EST)
			------------------------------

			Hello everyone,

			It makes perfect sense in my mind the right to be forgotten, because it deals with the in a way if you will manipulation of private information by another. In the United States we have the fifth amendment that addresses the issue of this spectrum, but in a sense if pictures, dialogues or any other information will be circulating the internet without permission of its owner, then there is an infringement of the law of privacy.

			Now what I did not understand complexly is how this is a issue of freedom of speech, well certainly it is not heated speech, but it is the manipulation of some private property without consent.

			I understand how this would be an issue of the first amendment if the property would not be private, and just by putting it online does it make it public, even though it stills has characteristics of private property because the scope of interests, or information is not necessarily public unless it is. I mean pictures of someone that do not affect public policy or public interests should not be considered public.

			Furthermore, I think then the disjunctive is that one should have to objectively establish a standard or threshold of private or public property, and from there it would be a matter of first or fifth amendment.

			Nonetheless, this is a latent problem and needs proper resolution, for this reason, I think that the right to be forgotten is and will be very important in our lives as technology evolves, we cannot let technology run our privacy matters but automation, but we need to be active participants of our evolving future.

			(16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)16:18, 24 February 2015 (EST)~)