Comments on: Japanese court demands ‘right to be forgotten’ for sex offender

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:09:28 +0000

Good thinking JR! I like that idea!

By: JR

JR — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:30:15 +0000

In reply to Karen. Agreed, but Google has altered its business practices due to the laws of other countries (China being the biggest, most oppressive of information availability)

By: Karen

Karen — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 17:38:20 +0000

This brings forth one of the biggest problems with the internet and the huge internet presences like Google. Every country int he World had different laws and citizens rights – in Japan it maybe his civil right to have all information gone once sentence is served. Google and the rest of them cannot continue to operate as if the whole World falls on the same rules as theirs. Just because the USA citizens have completely lost any right to privacy sanctioned by our government does not mean every country allows their citizens to be treated that way.

By: JR

JR — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 18:12:40 +0000

I’ve often wondered what legal foundation we would have in not attacking the public registry directly but going after 3rd party sites and search engines. Meaning let the National and State registries be public but legally challenge the posting of the information second-handedly and restricting search engines from displaying individual’s information.

Example: Someone wants to search the National Registry? Great… They must access that site directly.

Someone “Googles” Jon Doe S.O. And Google does not display Jon Doe’s SO flyer but simply directs to the National Site for the person to search

Perhaps this question has been legally answered and I’m not aware of it?

“Kid Safe” websites AND those that offer registry searches and alerts likely have less resources to defend themselves compared to that of the DOJ.