Clearly, most users consider the content they've posted themselves as being personal data...when you delete your FB account, you expect that posted content to be deleted.
So if an ex-lover decides to screenshot some material that I only shared with my close friends and republishes it to Tumblr to embarrass me...does this law cover that? Sure, that seems like a clear cut case to most of us...and there are libel and harassment laws that cover this.
Now what if I make my affiliation with the KKK known on FB (such as Liking them and listing it under my job history). I renounce the organization and delete my FB account a month later later, but before then, someone has decided to post a screenshot of that ugly tidbit on their blog because while I was working as a cashier at Acme burger, they feel that I discriminated against them and so this KKK datapoint is proof.
Ten years later, does the public have a right to know that info, even if I spent the rest of the decade doing what I can to fight the KKK's efforts. Don't I have a right to be forgotten by search engines of my brief dalliance with the KKK?
Again, there are defamation laws that I can try to leverage (in the US, I would be considered a non public figure with stronger libel protections)...with this EU law, I now have e ability to bring a lawsuit against Facebook for not doing enough, in my opinion, to stop the dissemination of information after I deleted my account.
Now if your rebuttal is "well, it is a technical impossibility for FB to stop others from disseminating that information" Well, is it really? Or did FB just shirk their duties to save an extra buck? That's for the courts to decide...and as you well know, technical implementation is not always a deciding factor in the ruling.
I've used two extreme cases (most people hate the KKK so much that I assume they don't care if the person in the second scenario has their data shared)...but you can imagine all the other cases to fill the spectrum. You seem to take it for a given that the courts all agree what is in the public interest and what free speech is...but the reality is that such debates and lawsuits still go on today
Now I know no one sympathizes with the companies here...but given the litigious possibilities this law opens up, how do you think that might stifle initiatives that theoretically could fall afoul of this law? This is why I think it is akin to SOPA, which ostensibly protected the rights of content producers, but would've opened up new ways for certain companies to restrict and sue Google.
Clearly, most users consider the content they've posted themselves as being personal data...when you delete your FB account, you expect that posted content to be deleted.
So if an ex-lover decides to screenshot some material that I only shared with my close friends and republishes it to Tumblr to embarrass me...does this law cover that? Sure, that seems like a clear cut case to most of us...and there are libel and harassment laws that cover this.
Now what if I make my affiliation with the KKK known on FB (such as Liking them and listing it under my job history). I renounce the organization and delete my FB account a month later later, but before then, someone has decided to post a screenshot of that ugly tidbit on their blog because while I was working as a cashier at Acme burger, they feel that I discriminated against them and so this KKK datapoint is proof.
Ten years later, does the public have a right to know that info, even if I spent the rest of the decade doing what I can to fight the KKK's efforts. Don't I have a right to be forgotten by search engines of my brief dalliance with the KKK?
Again, there are defamation laws that I can try to leverage (in the US, I would be considered a non public figure with stronger libel protections)...with this EU law, I now have e ability to bring a lawsuit against Facebook for not doing enough, in my opinion, to stop the dissemination of information after I deleted my account.
Now if your rebuttal is "well, it is a technical impossibility for FB to stop others from disseminating that information" Well, is it really? Or did FB just shirk their duties to save an extra buck? That's for the courts to decide...and as you well know, technical implementation is not always a deciding factor in the ruling.
I've used two extreme cases (most people hate the KKK so much that I assume they don't care if the person in the second scenario has their data shared)...but you can imagine all the other cases to fill the spectrum. You seem to take it for a given that the courts all agree what is in the public interest and what free speech is...but the reality is that such debates and lawsuits still go on today
Now I know no one sympathizes with the companies here...but given the litigious possibilities this law opens up, how do you think that might stifle initiatives that theoretically could fall afoul of this law? This is why I think it is akin to SOPA, which ostensibly protected the rights of content producers, but would've opened up new ways for certain companies to restrict and sue Google.