So, one agent was caught and convicted of theft, on an unrelated matter, and this is evidence of corruption? Wouldn't that, in fact, be evidence of a system that is successfully punishing corruption?
And since the transaction history is traceable, you cannot posit mysterious other transactions that are unaccounted for. Those would be quickly revealed.
If it's not exposed to the internet no problem.
Not true unfortunately under the GDPR nor it's predecessor, if the notes are publicly available:
Bodil Lindquist v Åklagarkammaren (2003)
Mrs. Lindquist (whose purposes were mostly charitable and religious) published on a private home page personal data about her colleagues, including telephone numbers and information about a coworker’s injured foot and medical leave. This case raised the question if a private home page accessible to only those who have the address is permitted under one of the exclusions (household activity). The European Court of Justice ruled that it is not.
> This Regulation does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity and thus with no connection to a professional or commercial activity. 2Personal or household activities could include correspondence and the holding of addresses, or social networking and online activity undertaken within the context of such activities. 3However, this Regulation applies to controllers or processors which provide the means for processing personal data for such personal or household activities.
Not true unfortunately under the GDPR nor it's predecessor, if the notes are publicly available:
Bodil Lindquist v Åklagarkammaren (2003)
Mrs. Lindquist (whose purposes were mostly charitable and religious) published on a private home page personal data about her colleagues, including telephone numbers and information about a coworker’s injured foot and medical leave. This case raised the question if a private home page accessible to only those who have the address is permitted under one of the exclusions (household activity). The European Court of Justice ruled that it is not.
A "private home page accessible to only those who have the address" is a public page.
That's not a private note, and I'd be livid if somebody was posting my contact and medical details online. I see no problem with this ruling, nor do I see it as evidence contrary to the idea that one may keep private notes.
In response to a comment about keeping notes, which any reasonable person would interpret as meaning private notes.
What got my goat, though, wasn't the mere, if silly, clarification that notes are only protected if they're private. It's the phrasing of the quote to suggest that somehow these notes should have been considered private because the publisher didn't intend on anyone reading them (despite publishing them such that they could).
What court wording are you referencing? The judgment says "private home page which is none the less accessible to anyone who knows its address", a very different turn of phrase.
I meant do you have a source for the court notes where they said that. It doesn't sound like a quote to me, it sounds like a precis.
In fact it sounds like a precis of the quote I provided, but I could also imagine the defendant's lawyer saying it in the more loaded way presented here.
Major privacy honeypot...enter your number, have it PRINTED ON THE WEBPAGE for millions of other visitors to see, add to spam lists etc, they could at least mask the number....
It's the law in the UK (and presumably similar in the rest of the EU).
Every conviction must be declared for a small number of years if asked. After that period it must only be declared if you're applying for a sensitive job (e.g. school teacher) and it resulted in a custodial sentence.
This is a big point of confusion. A background check will check the court records, where your convictions will still be listed (unless protected from disclosure e.g. California background checks generally don't show convictions > 7 years https://www.goodhire.com/california/background-checks).
A real con artist can just fake someone's ID, for them it's pretty trivial.
The issue is less than 1% of convictions ever make it to the Internet, and those people currently will be stigmatized forever, unlike the other 99%, unless they have this mechanism. Google's plea was 'we will self police, but we won't tell you how. We will ignore court orders, because we choose to'. The court objected to that approach.
If you are convicted of new crimes, no matter how long ago, then your sentence may be significantly increased as a repeat offender.
I guess it depends where you live. In my country faking IDs is hard as we use biometric documents and it's a very serious crime, so many small time tricksters will not do that. There's a tone of small online merchants, lousy businessmen, crooks, etc. pulling small tricks on people - taking money and not providing anything in return, or providing really bad service, or you order one thing and they send you something else. Since CC payments are still not that common here and it's not uncommon that you wire your money to the merchant and then you're not covered by usual money-back guarantees from the bank and visa, and you need to complain to them and threaten to sue them and then they usually give you money back after a few months, using it meanwhile for their own profit. They do that on purpose. However, if you know better usually you can google them and find people complaining about being tricked, so you can avoid falling in the trap. I'm not talking about big media news, but usually forum posts or tweets and things like that, and you can't find those ever without a help of google. I do this every time I buy something online from a local seller. Since this is EU, if this right to be forgotten becomes a common law they'll be able to completely cover their tracks and I see that as a real-life problem for me and many others here.
GDPR will have a massive effect no matter where you are. The trickle-down affects are key.
Many large companies do business with Europe. Many of them are implementing GDPR-like controls and/or adopting Privacy Shield. Other US companies doing business with them must adhere to the new vendor controls these US-companies have adopted, or lose that business.
Across the world, (e.g. Singapore, Philippines and Japan) Privacy laws are being re-written to align parts of local law to GDPR.
The US has limited privacy laws generally (e.g. dat breach notification laws in CA and MA), but has adopted specific protections depending on industry (HIPAA for healthcare, GLBA for Banking). More like likely occur.
While mankind has not needed a right to be forgotten previously, it didn't have the omnipresent Google to deal with either. These are just the opening shots in the Privacy battle that will spread from GDPR.
Other search engines are affected too, but Google has a massive market share and has a long litigation history in Europe.
