I took this picture in Liverpool (UK) back in 2006 while I was hired to assist a Swiss Television crew shooting a documentary on the Echelon’s ? station at RAF Menwith Hill base. Continue reading “The Early 2000th BT Way to Sell the Internet”
The Right to Be Forgotten Has Nothing To Do With Privacy
A side effect of ? Fuchmanns vs Germany is ? the (hopefully final) clarification that Right to Be Forgotten has nothing to do with Privacy protection.
Fuchmanns vs Germany, indeed, is an European Court of Human Rights Article 8 (privacy) case, while Right to Be Forgotten is an EU Fundamental Chart Article 7 (personal data protection) right.
Trying to use privacy as a legal basis for the Right to be forgotten is just plain wrong.
A Phenomenological Analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (fake) Creed
Every historical phase had its superstitions, false creeds and fake prophets, whose “reliability” was boosted by illustrious (while ignorant) believers, and our times aren’t by no means any different. Continue reading “A Phenomenological Analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (fake) Creed”
GDPR: from the Right to Be Forgotten to the Duty of Not Being Remembered
Leo Matiz took this picture in 1957, in Caracas, Venezuela. The photo was a “candid”, i.e. shot unbeknownst to the people portrayed, in the classic, Cartier-Bresson-like street-photography style, and acquired by the New York MoMA. Continue reading “GDPR: from the Right to Be Forgotten to the Duty of Not Being Remembered”
The ECHR to bash the online right to be forgotten
On Oct. 19 the European Court of Human Rights issued the decision of the case 71233/13 – Fuchsmann vs Germany where the Court held that:
No violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the German courts’ rejection of the request by an internationally active entrepreneur for an injunction against ? certain statements about him in an article published in the online edition of the New York Times.
The Court found that the German courts had struck a reasonable balance between the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 and the newspaper’s right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. They had taken into consideration, in particular: that there had been a public interest in the alleged involvement of the applicant, a German businessman, in embezzlement and organised crime; that there had been a sufficient factual basis for the statements at issue; and that the article – which concerned mainly his professional life – was free from polemic statements and insinuations.
Continue reading “The ECHR to bash the online right to be forgotten”