W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-privacy@w3.org > October to December 2012

RE: search engines: right to be forgotten, sitemap.xml proposed solution

From: Joe Alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:41:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <15c13c8a-3e95-43eb-ad7b-5cce7c7d5128@default>
To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Cc: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@csail.mit.edu>, Shane Wiley <wileys@yahoo-inc.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, rob@blaeu.com, public-privacy@w3.org
Karl:

Thanks for the clarification, but the point I was trying to raise is that if those tools may impinge other rights including the possible over-breadth of application - not every piece of information is subject to an individual request for redaction or forgetting so how does the tool you are envisioning triage those things which are in discretion of the individual to redact/suppress and those which may have an independent right to exist despite the displeasure of the individual. Those decisions may well be context dependent and my presumption is that the tool is more binary in nature?   To your first point related to tools, if properly scoped and context appropriate, they could also be relevant to the enforcement of appropriate data retention under 95/46 where information can only be retained for a period of time relevant to the purpose of collection...

Best-

Joe

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Dubost [mailto:karld@opera.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 5:28 PM
To: Joe Alhadeff
Cc: Daniel Weitzner; Shane Wiley; Thomas Roessler; rob@blaeu.com; public-privacy@w3.org
Subject: Re: search engines: right to be forgotten, sitemap.xml proposed solution

Joe,

Le 13 déc. 2012 à 05:02, Joe Alhadeff a écrit :
> As I pointed out in the previous post, having conversations of pure technical feasibility without considering legal context may be an interesting exercise in theoretical application but has little to do with a real world discussion of whether the ENISA proposal would be considered as practically or politically viable.

I think there is a misunderstanding.
The legal context is very important. It is also highly cultural and dependent of the countries. It should not be neglected. 

My discussion previously in this thread is not about "the rights that a user would have in his/her interactions with a third party" (which is very important bis repetita), but, about "what are the current and missing tools right now for a user to have more controls on the way he/she shares the data." So far the granularity is almost 0 and 1. I want a full spectrum in between.

Rob started with a simple question on tools with a bad title on this thread.
"Right to be forgotten" instead of "Needs and tools for reducing the footprint".

Hoping it clarifies.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 05:43:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 December 2012 05:43:11 GMT