Who Determines What Will Be “Forgotten” On The Internet?

Readers may have heard of the strange, tragic story of a thirty-one year old Italian woman named Tiziana Cantone.  According to media reports, she made sex videos with a current boyfriend and then sent the video to several other people, among them one of her ex-boyfriends.  At some point in the spring of 2015, the videos were uploaded to various porn sites.  From this point, Cantone became the target of ridicule and mockery.  She changed her name and moved to a different part of Italy.  But everywhere she went, people eventually recognized her.

Cantone, now desperate to have the videos removed, found out that it was not an easy thing to do.  Unfortunately for her, at least one of the videos appeared to show her consenting to having the sex filmed.  It has also been alleged that she was involved in several “swinging” relationships.  She finally took legal action against some of the porn sites, but it turned out to be a laborious process and she incurred about 20,000 Euros in court costs.  In despair, she hanged herself.

The case brought into the spotlight the so-called “right to be forgotten” on the internet.  The right has been recognized in Europe, and permits people to have things about themselves removed from internet search engines unless there are “particular reasons” not to do so.  Basically, a balancing test is done to decide if the public interest in having the information is outweighed by the individual’s privacy interest in removing it.  Not surprisingly, this cutting-edge legal concept has attracted fierce debate.  On one side are the privacy advocates, who justifiably emphasize that a person should not continue to be plagued forever by personal information that sits in search engines for years.  On the other side are the “censorship” opponents who claim that allowing this sort of internet sanitizing would eventually degrade the value of search engines as a whole.

Both sides, of course, have valid points.  The internet has become a vast dumping ground of stale, outdated, and irrelevant personal information.  At some point, people should have the right to get on with their lives and not have to be worried about those drunken photos of themselves that they posted on Instagram, or that traffic court case from 1998.  But the search engines see it differently, at least to some extent.  They argue that a “free society” demands unrestricted access to historical information.  In a recent article about the matter in the New York Times, one commented stated:

“When we’re talking about a broadly scoped right to be forgotten that’s about altering the historical record or making information that was lawfully public no longer accessible to people, I don’t see a way to square that with a fundamental right to access to information,” said Emma Llansó, a free expression scholar at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a tech-focused think tank that is funded in part by corporations, including Google.

Not surprisingly, big business, governments, and some globalist voices are not happy about giving individuals the ability to control what is available about them online.  They know that information is money and power, and fear the removal of data that might affect their bottom line.  Delinking, as it is called, will supposedly have the net effect of scrubbing the internet free of useful information.

Governments are also worried.  They know that the internet and social media is one of their primary ways to gather intelligence in real-time.  In fact, a conference in London in November of 2016 highlighted the growing use of social media as intelligence mines for governments.  Militaries and governments (as well as non-state actors) are tripping over themselves to use social media for their own ends.  According to the article linked to in the preceding sentence:

According to a description of the project on the Thales website, the partners have created a demonstrator tool that is currently being tested with users from security organisations. They said the “Initial feedback is very positive.”

The tool is all about “real-time surveillance”: social media information coming into the system is “immediately analysed” using Big Data algorithms and techniques “to detect changes, trends or anomalies” and “identify potentially dangerous entities”.  The tool is already so powerful, claims Thales, that it takes just 5 to 10 seconds for new information appearing on the web “to show up in the system, so intelligence analysts have up-to-the minute insights into situations as they evolve.”  The current dataset has some 70 million documents, with 25,000 new documents added daily, and search results delivered in less than 5 seconds.

Media Miser extracts and filters data on a particular topic as soon as it is posted online. Tools developed by the NRC process this content in real time by translating and summarising the data. The information is then assigned various ratings and descriptions: a tone rating (positive, negative, neutral); signs of emotion (anger, fear, etc.); the geographic location of the source; and the identities of the individuals or groups involved in the making and distributing the content.

We can surmise that big business and governments are not going to take the lead in protecting the privacy of the average citizen.  In addition, privacy advocates note that the fear-mongering claims of governments and big business about delinking rules are overblown.  They note that Google already practices worldwide deletion and delinking in cases of copyright infringement or piracy.  Since they are already doing it now for big business, why can’t they do it for individuals?

The answer, of course, lies in balancing the legitimate need for privacy rights with the public’s need for access to information free of undue restrictions.  When the information is of such a personal nature that it should fall within the scope of privacy, then the individual should be able to control it.  One possible practical way to implement the “right to be forgotten” is to use something like the software tool Oblivion.

It is possible to construct something that positively balances personal with public rights.  But who will make these decisions?  Who will decide whether something belongs more in the public or the private domain?  If it is to be the search engines themselves, then there must be some other authority to appeal to in cases where wrong decisions are made.  No single entity should have veto power over what appears online; that would be placing too much power in too few hands.

Read More: My Experience Building A Computer

170 thoughts on “Who Determines What Will Be “Forgotten” On The Internet?”

  1. So now celebrities like Jenifer Lawrence can delete her nude photos, so in the end only the people with money and power will benefit from it.

  2. There are several data storage centers all around the world, anything worthwhile is also stored on hundreds if not thousands of computers by private individuals. Nothing that is uploaded on the internet can be removed.

      1. True, but being difficult to find does not mean DNE. That is the politically scary part. This data that means little to you and me does have consequences for those running for office or are in a position to be blackmailed.

    1. IMdB just got rid of all there forum discussions. I wouldn’t know how to retrieve any of that, unless it shows up on WayBackMachine or something, which I doubt

      1. Someone, somewhere, somehow spent a valuable chunk of their time screen printing the forums!

        1. I used to copy my own comments and replies. It would be possible to copy / print some of the less popular forums. But just try that for Game of Thrones or something

    2. Its really very simple: assume anything you type, scan, say, or photograph on any computer anywhere will never be deleted.

      1. unless it is that one photo of your nanna that can never be replaced and only exists in one place and you have been meaning to get it printed and framed…that one will invariably be totally deleted never to return. Just the way these things go ya kjnow

        1. Sure, but really, 2090 grandma is pretty hot. Doubt she aged well though. Or maybe we will have mastered immortality by then? Who knows?

        2. At least the bitch from the right seems to be happier.
          Who would have thought that iphones make women livelier.

        3. The woman on the left does look stern. But do you really think that the woman on the right is truly happy in any real sense?

        4. I believe none of them were/are happy, it’s just that the one from the right received more pleasure during her lifetime, the one from the left would probably be jealous.

        5. How do you figure?
          Assuming hot-right girl here is the typical Grrl Pwrrr career girl cock carosel riding bimbo, then yeah from 16-28 she’s having a lot of physical fun. But then…the rest of her life sets in. Meanwhile, left-traditional girl has a lot of children early, raises a family (and the associated trials and joys that go with that) and then when she’s 45-55 is the matronly grandmother who reaps loads of happiness being surrounded by a huge family that loves and cherishes her. Hot girl on the other hand leathers up, wrinkles up, becomes invisible and lives 50 additional years being lonely and bitter and smelling vaguely of cat urine.
          Long story short, short term pleasure ain’t got nothing on long term happiness.

        6. They had to pose like that because of the photographic process, which took HOURS to make ONE picture.
          My family has a picture like that on the (edit: left) (circa 1800s).

        7. In reality nobody. I’m just entertaining a point of view here.

        8. Well, heh, not hours, but it did take some time. The picture and clothing there suggest that’s in the 1910’s – 1930’s, give or take (maybe even country 1940’s). Pictures were more or less fast by that point.

        9. My family has a picture like that on the right (circa 1800s).

          Wait…your family has a girl in underwear taking a selfie on a pic from the 1800’s?
          Dude, I have to own that picture. I collect paper ephemera. How much?

        10. My view is simple everyone has a predetermined lvl of happiness that he will exprerience during his lifetime.
          The bimbo exhausts it all during her 20s, while the conservative receives constant drops of low-lvl pleasure up until she dies.
          To claim that women had it better during this period, or that period, in this society or that society it’s childish to me.
          It’s very hard to find happiness & i don’t think there’s societies that generate more happiness than others.

        11. But in reality, sure, she did that, but generally only when the engagement ring was firmly in place or about to be. Women are women, but society used to set a lot of rules that were harshly enforced via a variety of ways that kept most women semi-honest. No question there was cheating, pre-marital sex, all that, but it wasn’t “every girl you’ll ever meet” like it is now.

        12. I don’t agree with your premise in the least. There’s physical pleasure which is short and fleeting (and I say this as a guy who really likes to fuck) and then the more constant steady state happiness/contentment that comes from a more long range view. There is no pool of happiness credits that, once you get to the end, is done. My wife glows around the kids still, and one is an adult and the other one is about to be. That thing doesn’t happen in “Party Girl’s” world, she takes fleeting moments of pleasure, no question, but spends a lot of time with anxiety, cortisol stress and eventually hard, cold isolated loneliness. Plus, married family women still fuck too, believe it or not, so she doesn’t even have that over married women.

        13. It depends on your kids.
          Some kids are shitty human beings, some kids are sickly or handicaped.
          Some mothers impede their children’s growth, having 30 year old “kids” that don’t have a job, does that make them happier?
          Or having kids that leave home early, being 40 and having a husband that screws the office bimbo, does that make her happy?
          How do you measure it?

        14. When speaking in general, I always make room for the exceptions to the rule. There may well be some truly happy cum sluts and some truly miserable or sad mothers, but the bulk general portion I think that my view applies.
          Interesting discussion. I really value most discussions on ROK because outside of the trolls we can hash out topics rationally like this.

        15. Let me ask you this?
          Heidi Klum got fucked like crazy, she is a star, she shits money & she has kids.
          Would the 30s lifestyle make her more fulfilled?

        16. When talking about normal people, I doubt that the lifestyle of celebrities applies. Film matrons from the 1930’s were in a similar predicament in their own way, but that doesn’t mean that generally what I speak of is accurate.

        17. You could remove the model part from the equation.
          Is a woman with a good career, kids & that fucked in her youth happier, the answer is yes. The fact that most women don’t know how to take advantage of that is another problem.
          But having to pretend to give a shit about a husband that drinks too much, whores around or simply doesn’t get her off any longer(if he ever did) is that life better? Is puritanism better?
          You would hate it too if your happiness depended on someone else, be it kids or a husband.

        18. You’re working on the fringes still. I cede directly that the fringe exceptions exist, but I also hold that they don’t disprove the rule.
          Now in 2017 going forward, that may be right. But since our original subject was 1930’s girl vs. 2010 girl, I’m going with 1930’s girl overall having a lot more happiness when measured over the course of her life. And not some little “drip drip drip” thing that speaks of desperation, but a more whole, fulfilling happiness that is comprised of many things, not just physical pleasure (but that is not excluded either).

        19. You want examples from the past , ok.
          My grandma doesn’t go to church because she knows all the women that go there & she knows from past experiences that they’re all sluts.
          My other grandma was always fighting with my grandpa cause he drank too much and he was a loser. She couldn’t even cry for him at the funeral,(trust me all female villagers were checking how much she was grieving)
          My mother is nevrotic, she feels inadequate and she has put all her hopes in me becoming succesful. If I’m miserable, then she’s miserable.
          My aunt has Parkinsons, after all her life she struggled to help my cousins have a better life(I have a cousin with a rare condition)
          My other aunt had her husband die & went off and marries an older man in order to provide for her only daughter.
          Why wouldn’t a bimbo be happier than them ?

        20. So bimbos don’t get parkinsons, don’t have bad relationship things beyond anybody’s control and nobody dies if you’re a slut. Is this what you’re basing your argument on?

        21. Probably…until the big bopper came through town and those poodle skirts were pulled up for some roadie dick while they sucked off the bopper and he said heyyyyyy bayyyyybbbbeeeeee before going home and demanding the ring

        22. I’m not one to eschew reality, but outside of NYC the whole shame/blame thing was huge until the 1990’s. Being a divorcee or “slut” was a giant albatross around the neck, and not a source of pride like today.
          Easily I’ll cede extra marital affairs (hell, I think that generally this was for men and a good thing), no marriage sex and shit was present. But more often than not, “Good girls don’t do that” and it meant something with real consequences (outside of being in a real relationship).

        23. There were always bimbos, some were happy most were unhappy.
          A lot of bimbos do have kids you know, a lot of them in fact.
          There were always housewives, some are happy, some are unhappy.
          Marrying someone could be fulfiling, it depends on what the woman’s expectations are, I haven’t seen them to be blown away by the happiness they received, but hey if you claim that most families are doing great then so be it.
          Most young girls I know aren’t jealous on their mothers.

        24. Yeah, the modern age is much better for females. Ok.
          Slainte mhor.

        25. Hah so true.
          Although the chances of the girl on the right having kids that survive is another issue. She may not have any grandkids to find her picture.

        26. [talking at the dinner table about Franklin Roosevelt]
          Grandma Mary Cleary: But that wife of his, Eleanor… Big dyke! Huge dyke. A real rug muncher. Looked like a big lesbian mule.

        27. but portraits like that were still to be stoic and formal up to about the early 30s. The style lasted a lot longer than the reason for it.

        28. Bingo, everyone assumes an unhappy marriage can be replaced with happy singlehood. One way you get loads of social cost and another way you get some protections.
          You have to work the odds based on what we know about human nature over time. You also need to junk extraneous assumptions about what marriage and kids has to mean.
          Nobody is insulated against the folly of choosing to marry like an idiot or just being the victim of awful luck

        29. That’s at least partially because natural consequences were high.
          Women aren’t truly insane. When syphilis was this horrible disease that drove you insane, people locked it down pretty tight. Even men discovered chastity.
          Pregnancy was no joke either, women died all the time.
          The price of sex was high and even idiots knew it enough to modify behavior.

        30. And there were hookers in the OT. So yeah, but it’s about widespread behavior (unitintentional zing).
          It’s analogous to the gay thing. The higher the price of anything the less there is of it. Getting caught meant ostracism, which terrifies women in particular.
          You can even see it in prostitution trends, which we know about through police reports and other means. Men pay for what they can’t get normally and how much they spend helps show which social classes had to partake.
          When rich men pay enough for a gilt edge bawdy house and “French style” coitus, that tells us casual sex is not really a common option. When middle class nice guys pay a fortune for GFE, that tells you a girl being kind of nice to you is not a live option.

      2. People early on in the internet kind of knew this, but social media imo got the hordes to publish every facet of their lives online without thinking of the consequences.
        Posting something online is like printing out 100 copies and dumping them off your roof, the only difference being if someone gets ahold of even one copy, they can replicate it an infinite amount of times.

    3. Sounds to me like somebody doesn’t have a Hot Tub Time Machine!
      That movie is one of my guilty pleasures. Yeah, I know…

        1. I have a stack of old Calvin & Hobbes books, from when they used to print up books with all of the panels from the daily/Sunday strips in them. Read over a few of them. That was one hell of a quality comic, man.

        2. Calvin embodied the essence of growing up as a GenX (and earlier) male.

        3. Calvin & Hobbes, The Far Side and Bloom County were my go to comics.

        4. It’s funny because I was born in ’86 but in the months leading up to the election I had been reading all my old Calvin and Hobbes books and wishing I could have go back to those times. My kids also have the old Charlie Brown holidays specials on their Fire and I felt a nostalgia for something I never experienced. I always say I was born 40-50 years too late.

        5. C&H is the best.
          “Spaceman Spiff” caricture was spraypainted on more than a few military vehicles in my day.

        6. I graduated high school in 1985. You could literally be my son, assuming that I had a child out of wedlock, lol.
          It was a fucking fantastic time to grow up from a boy into a man. All of the cool parts of the traditional 1950’s combined with the fun and laid back attitude of the later years, all framed in the optimism of Morning in America. And women were *feminine*, generally thin, and tried to keep up a nice appearance in public. And I even got to see Johnny Cash AND Elvis live in concert. (!)
          You never really know you’re living in a Golden Age until it’s long gone. Shame about that.

        7. Call me old fashioned but I still prefer the paper version of a book which the new electronic devices cannot quite recreate! The smell,the touch and randomly reading chapters where a tiny corner is folded!

        8. I’m in between on that. For technical stuff, or newer authors, I don’t mind e-books at all. But for the canonical stuff I really, really enjoy paper books, especially hard bound with the gold leaf gilding on the pages and the built in (usually silk) bookmark, for all of the reasons that you mention.

        9. I met a guy about 10 yrs ago who had a nationally syndicated cartoon strip; thought to myself “man, that guy is living the dream!”. I wonder if their payout has gone up or down with the demise of papers but the rise of the internet?

        10. No idea. I hope that they’re doing well. There’s still some real good work out there. The Oatmeal is, hands down, one hell of a talent.

        11. No Dennis the Menace these days. He would be put on ritalin the first time he acted out. And mr Wilson woulda made this suggestion to his parents

        12. I like what you said here. I graduated 1982, joined the Marines, and went to Japan and the Philippines. In my opinion, the East was the best place in the world for a horny young man like me. And I agree. The eighties was the Golden Age. The music was better. The women were finer. And I saw Van Halen when David Lee Roth was still there front man.

        13. Dennis was the prophet of Calvin.
          You know, I never really missed comics like I do now. So many truly fun male characters that weren’t wusses or pandering idiots. I blame Sally Forth for starting the mangina in comics trend.

        14. Got in mind to build up a little library when I’ll eventually buy a house with a study. Might end up somewhat costly but that old book smell is hella nice!

        15. Lucky man. I saw the “reunited” Van Halen with David Lee, but back in 2008 I think(?), when they were way old and the whole magic thing was gone.
          A buddy of mine’s older brother had tickets from 1980 to the last concert of Led Zepplin, which got canceled due to Bonham’s death, that he framed and hung on the wall in their house. I also distinctly remember when Elvis died, down to minute details (I really like(d) Elvis) of what I was doing and where I was, because my grandparents (who basically raised me after a certain age) were Elvis fanatics and I really dug his music (still do).

        16. I saw Van Halen at US ’83. They headlined Sunday heavy metal day. The next day, Monday, I saw David Bowie.
          And the women back then were better in bed than these punk-ass bitches we have now. The girls back then had more hustle-and-lust about them. I think the thing about sin and taboo made it more exciting. That’s my take on it, anyway.
          And I remember when Elvis died, as well as Jon Bonham.

        17. do you have a link to an archive of Larson’s stuff by any chance? My fave had the caption “Dodge City before they removed the “ball” ” with a bunch of cowboys throwing red balls at each other

        18. You’ve not seen Sally Forth? She’s been a staple comic since at least the 1990’s.

        19. I saw the Marshall Tucker band a few years back. So bad. They really needed to quit touring.

        20. Shit, for some reason, cannot paste photos here. Either that, or cannot see them. Firefox is really sucking hind tit these days!

    4. That’s true, but anything that isn’t “fed” will disappear from the internet and people who saved it locally will eventually lose it as harddrives fail and they switch computers. If they manage not to have the data destroyed they’ll just forget about it. Only the NSA will keep it.

  3. Its really quite simple: assume anything you type, scan, say, or photograph on any computer anywhere will never be deleted.

  4. In order to be effective, any ‘right to be forgotten’ will need to be enforced by a supra-national global authority with the ability to conduct unimpeded search and seizure operations. The good news is the UN is already about half way toward realizing this goal.
    If, on the other hand, you see some drawbacks in this approach, perhaps we could simply acknowledge that saving people from themselves isn’t ever really a good idea in the first place.

    1. Really that’s the high and low of it. The only “problem” here is that people are being idiots and then claiming victim status. There is no “problem” here to solve at all, except maybe insofar as to start teaching a modicum of common sense in schools (“No April, don’t make porno and put it on the internet dear, that’s not a wise move”).

      1. “No April, don’t make porno and put it on the internet dear, that’s not a wise move. You will be bullied until you kill yourself if you do.”
        Don’t dilute the message – tell the whole truth.

  5. At some point, people should have the right to get on with their lives
    and not have to be worried about those drunken photos of themselves that
    they posted on Instagram, or that traffic court case from 1998.

    Under what theory is that correct? That’s like saying that a person has a right to throw a bunch of pictures in the street for the random public to see, walk away and then not have that action come back to haunt her ten years later.
    Here’s the clue: The interwebs are public. Even the supposed “private” shit, is public for all intents and purposes, because it can be made so very easily through mistake or malice. If you’re sucking cock and getting dicked by three guys, and you’re filming it and sending it out to others over the interwebs, well then sorry sunshine, but you’re not just literally fucked, you’re also metaphorically fucked.
    The right to privacy exists, but to exercise it you first have to erect a barrier of some sort, meaning that you certainly can’t claim that right when you’re undressing in front of an open window in a busy city.

    1. This isn’t even theory for me, I’ve seen it play out locally. There was the picture perfect prom queen type, whose parents doted on her and gave her her own way.
      She went out West a few years ago to get “equipped with scripts and fake breasts” which shortly turned to doing an adult audition, with a fresh tramp stamp and frosted hair no less.
      The news spread here like wildfire, her parents disowned her, and she became reclusive, fat, and an addict last seen headed for the border.
      What was particularly memorable though was not that it was the local upstanding women who shamed her (she ignored them), but that the guy she wanted most, had no use for her.
      So much different than this call to arms we see here over a different valueless woman.

      1. Valueless woman, exactly the words I was looking for. I feel no sympathy for the chick in this article at all. She made a huge string of bad decisions, and they came back and bit her in the ass. So be it.

        1. bubububububu just because I spent my entire life making bad decisions that doesn’t mean that they should ever effect me in a negative way ITS NOT FAIR!

        2. Yeah, right?
          But if you fuck a girl, she gets pregnant and she doesn’t abort, guess who gets to have a decision affect him for the rest of *his* life?

        3. I can’t see the kneeman as a dad.
          Little Tommy: “Hey dad can i play in the street with my friends”
          Kneeman: “Sure son just make sure you choose the lanes with the most traffic. It will be just like playing dodgeball” *evil smurk
          Little Tommy: “Dad i love you.”
          Kneeman: “Yea yea yea i love you too you little bastard”

        4. Kneeman: “Don’t play with matches.”
          Little Growing Knee (or Knee Grow for short): “But dad, I like fire”.
          Kneeman: “Fuck this. I’m out. Divorce papers served. Screw you people, I’m going home…” [exeunt]

        5. What happens to most men when they royally fuck their life up? They end up on the street usually, and nobody gives a fuck. What happens to a woman who does the same? They find some sap to mooch off of, or they become a baby factory and leech off the state.

        6. Modern society loves to punish the prudent and responsible to aid the imprudent and irresponsible.
          In the last financial crisis there was article after article about gathering sympathy for people who borrowed too much money and made poor choices. The prudent are still being punished to prevent the imprudent from suffering the consequences of their actions now a decade or so behind us.

        7. “But….I’m a strong opinionated woman. I’m as empowered and equal as a man. I must never be made to account for the consequences of my actions though. That’s not written in the script of my life as an empowered woman! WAAH…”

        8. Funny thing was the articles made the borrowers victims of predatory lending. The thing here is that the terms were clearly stated on the loan documents if the borrower took the time to not only read them, but understand them as well.
          They were not victims, they were idiots.

        9. The NYTimes ones were the best/worst. One I remember was a couple who could no longer afford their park ave place and were underwater on it or some such. We were supposed to have sympathy because the guy’s income had dropped from 350K to 150K or some such…. The sympathy plays went from people who got 7 figure bonuses right down to people on welfare or working minimum wage jobs who decided to jump in and borrow big to buy homes, make investment bets, or whathaveyou. But in each case the bad people were prudent savers who stayed out of the insanity and/or bought less because of the high prices.

      2. “..valueless woman.”
        They create their own hells (so do men). A woman who submits to a man, has children, does the best she can with the tools available and supports her family has security and status within her tribe until the grave. A grandmother, in the tradtiional sense, is a woman of value by the fruits of her loins (and it is validated with every holiday and family get together).
        An old woman with no family is invisible. She has no societal value.

        1. Incorrect. A woman like that has plenty of value for the left. And the makers of Sharpies and oaktag. These are the ones doing all the protesting

        2. Not really. They get 15 minutes and are ejected to the trash heap when they are no longer usefull tools. Do you recall the name Cindy Sheehan?

        3. This woman (Cantone) shouldn’t be allowed to be scrubbed from the memory of the internet. “Forgotten” my eye.
          She should be enshrined…as a warning to all who would seek this path and the consequences and repercussions of idiotic choices and our current social depravity.
          An elephant skeleton in a tar pit.

        4. An elephant skeleton in a tar pit.

          Damn man, you’re on fire today. That is thread win right there.
          How are you not on our Telegram channel?

        5. No shit. This example should be actively SHOWN to girls in middle school as an example of why not to sext topless pics to your little boyfriends.

        6. Yeah, one time. It’s never given out, you connect via whatever handle you create. It’s like a “safe texting” app in a way.

        7. My email is in my profile, drop me a line with your Telegram handle if you want in.

        8. Yeah, they call them Useful Idiots. First ones against the wall once they have served their purpose.

        9. They do things first then they reap the consequenses later , women don’t play chess , they are poor checker players at best .

        10. She also has value for the Right. “Now Jenny, you dont want to end up hanging yourself like Cantone do you dear? So no gangbangs, even with the 15 nice tattoed bikers who offered you all that lovely coke”

    2. Exactly this. Remember when that whole “Fappening” thing went down and celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence got all pissed because their nudes were circulating the net like wildfire? Article after stupid article went up about rights to privacy and amidst the clamor of mentally deficient retards ranting on the Internet about how the leak was akin to “rape” nearly drowned out the quiet voices of reason that suggested maybe, just maybe you shouldn’t do something on the Internet that you wouldn’t dream of doing in public. It all smacked terribly of the fallacious argument of “teach men not to rape and don’t teach women how to avoid rape”.
      Only those who are willing to take some aspect of responsibility to secure their rights can say their entitled to the same. Those who expect their rights to be served up to them on a silver platter without lifting a finger deserve no rights.

      1. Hmm… Not sure if I agree with your point. Someone purposely hacked their icloud to retrieve personal pictures. If someone did the same with you, would you blame yourself?

        1. You suggest a scenario that is prempted by the fact that I would never be so insurmountably stupid as to willingly upload compromising information of any kind about myself to any third party service that I have no absolute control over. This includes glamor shots of my “white as the undriven snow” ass.
          Years of high profile network breaches, data leaks, and general hackery dating back to the early development of the Internet should be an obvious reminder to anyone that the Internet is just like any other public place and you shouldn’t do things in public that you wouldn’t want the public to see. Yet this idiotic delusion persists among the average Internet plebians that there is some all encompassing veil of anonymity that confers some inalienable right to privacy and security of one’s information in cyberspace.
          Governments can’t even keep information secure. Major financial institutions routinely fail at keeping sensitive information out of hackers hands. Major healthcare entities end up paying truckloads of money to hackers ransoming the same data that the idiots in government mandated they were to keep secure. The Internet is not this bastion of security and anonymity that people believe it to be. It never was. To believe otherwise and act according to some misguided notion that your naked pictures are safe in “The Cloud” is stupidity of the purest form.

    3. I dunno about this. I do get your point, but for me personally, I was involved in an incident with an ex who created a profile of me on a site called Jerk.com. She anonymously wrote slandering information about me, and if anyone would google my name, the first link that would show up would be my profile on Jerk.com. Google would not remove that link after sending several communication attempts to them. Finally, after the FTC getting involved, the website was removed from the internet, and my profile was gone from Google searches. Now think of what Mattress girl did to her ex. Even though he was found not guilty, I’m sure any future employer who googles his name as part of a background check, the first that would pop up is the rape incident with Mattress girl. Does he have the pay the ultimate price for the rest of his life? Hell no!

      1. But that wasn’t *you* doing it, so it’s not even vaguely the same situation. The issue isn’t “things on the internet” without context, but things that an individual puts up about herself and then later gets all whiny about.

      2. Though I don’t generally agree with this right to be forgotten, I completely get where you’re coming from with this. But I’ve always wondered if there isn’t a different path that would accommodate both ends – it seems to me that part of the problem with removing your profile is that now she’s insulated from the consequences of HER actions. In other words, sure, your profile is gone, but now so is the evidence of what a psychopathic untrustworthy bitch she is. To me, it’s almost like the profile should remain, but with a big disclaimer that it is fake, and then a very public doxxing of her appended to it so that the whole world can forever see who she really is and what kind of underhanded, illegal shit she pulls.
        Same with that mattress girl bullshit. The problem isn’t that Nungesser is in the news – he is and always will be. The problem is that every outlet that ran that bullshit story is not forced to go back and append a big “THIS WHOLE STORY WAS BULLSHIT AND WE HELPED AN ATTENTION WHORING CUNT HURT AN INNOCENT MAN” headline on the front of it. If we’re going to revise history – revise it to show the truth, not to cover up the crime.

        1. This is why Trump has said he is going to revamp libel laws. Nungesser should be able to sue that bitch into the poorhouse and garnish any wages she makes for the rest of her life. Just wait.

        2. Well, he already can sue her, but there is no point because she has no money. The revamp would allow him to sue all the newspapers that ran this blatant falsehood and ruined him. Under the revamp, the press wouldn’t have some special protection that allows them to lie with impunity. People say this is an assault on the first amendment. I don’t see it that way. The press can say whatever they want, but if they lie, they can be sued like anyone else. The horror!

        3. I do believe he has sued Columbia University. Although, I don’t know what has ever come out of it. Now all of them are targeting Casey Affleck. I want to see what steps he takes to stop this madness.

      3. ” Even though he was found not guilty, I’m sure any future employer who googles his name as part of a background check, the first that would pop up is the rape incident with Mattress girl”
        Good point. Seriously I would not mind if we got a massive EMP from the sun and fried out all of our chips and shut all of this shit down for good, but I kinda doubt it will be for good.

        1. I wish Facebook was demolished. It has done more harm than good. People don’t even use that to follow up with friends. It’s basically a news sharing source now with fake news and girls showing how great their miserable life is.

        2. “. It’s basically a news sharing source now with fake news and girls showing how great their miserable life is.”
          And girls / women posting highly photoshopped images of themselves to get likes.

    4. “Under what theory is that correct? That’s like saying that a person has a right to throw a bunch of pictures in the street for the random public to see, walk away and then not have that action come back to haunt her ten years later”
      You have a valid point. But I think the difference here is that, in order to throw a bunch of photos in the street requires more time and effort: take the time to make the photos, then take the time and effort to print a bunch of photos, followed by more time and effort to get out and physically distribute them. And through this more involved and lengthy process, most likely there are moments to pause and rethink it all – and possibly decide against doing it – even for a hormonal driven dumbass like the female in question in this article.
      The problem today is that literally a photo or short homemade video clip can be made and immediately uploaded for the whole world to view in a matter of a few minutes with absolute ease – with practically no effort.
      It’s a double edged sword – on one hand homo sapien sapiens are flawed creatures and part of the growth process of a human being means making bad decisions and learning from them. On the other hand, let’s face it: there are certain bad decisions worth knowing about depending on the individual and circumstance, like for instance, if a man is considering marrying a female and got privy to the fact that she was a double-anal penetration receiving piece-of-shit whore.
      That said, we all tend to romanticise the past – the women of the good old days long before the net and feminism. But one has to wonder how pure would the females of yesteryear be if it were not for the technology that they didn’t have back then?

    5. Yeah, I find this right to be forgotten stuff unconvincing. You’re ashamed now? Should have thought about that then. I don’t really see this as any different than the naive 18 year old who posed for Playboy (or worse) back in the day. Those magazines were always around, lingering in attics and closets, and with copies available in some libraries. You didn’t have any right to round all those copies up so people could forget. And there’s a competing corollary that goes overlooked here – the right to remember. She wasn’t the only one in those videos. What if the dudes want them available? Why does she have the universal right to rewrite history? Pussy pass? Fuck that.
      We all have youthful indiscretions we’re not proud of. At the end of the day, Trump just gave you a blueprint about the way to get past it – own it, then ignore it and move on.

    6. “That’s like saying that a person has a right to throw a bunch of pictures in the street for the random public to see, walk away and then not have that action come back to haunt her ten years later.”
      Not the best example. If you throw a bunch of pictures in the street for people to see, they will be seen by a few people, and then eventually get thrown in the trash and forgotten (unless someone posts them on the internet, of course). On the other hand, if you post pictures online, they’re there forever for the world to see, they come up on search engines, etc.
      I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying the “throwing pictures in the street” is not the best comparison.
      Also, while I agree that some girl who uploads pornographic pictures/videos online has no right to complain about the consequences, what about the guy who was arrested for “domestic violence” 15 years ago because his psycho girlfriend attacked him and then called the cops on him when he defended himself, and his mugshot still comes up when people Google his name?
      What about the guy who got arrested for “rape” after a consensual encounter, only to have the charges dropped for lack of evidence, but his mugshot and charge (rape) still come up when you search his name?
      What about the 35-year-old man who doesn’t get hired for a job because the boss Googled his name and found out about his arrest for marijuana possession from when he was 18?
      Do you think these people deserve to be punished for life because of some crazy girl who cried rape/domestic violence, or some stupid mistake they made when they were 18?

  6. Most people think putting their pictures on the internet is like putting pictures on their refrigerator wall: they think they can remove them at the snap of a finger and go back to a clean slate.
    Unfortunately, the internet is a black hole: once you’ve uploaded your pictures to Fakebook, they will be somewhere out there, forever.
    Regarding people like the woman in the story, honestly, ZFG. There’s more pressing issues around the world than caring for people with not even the most basic self-discipline.
    The only way around this is to assume everything you put on the internet is going to be data-mined and somewhere on the internet, forever and assume you will have no control over it. With that said, share information only on a need-to-know basis and minimize/don’t use social networking.

  7. Dammit a woman should have the right to whore herself around, video it and show it everybody then change her mind! The internets need to revolve around WOMEN DAMMIT!

  8. “people should have the right to get on with their lives and not have to be worried about those drunken photos of themselves that they posted on Instagram, or that traffic court case from 1998”
    People should be held accountable for their actions, and shit like that shows profound lack of judgment. I really don’t have the slightest bit of sympathy for retards who post their personal info online. There’s simply no good reason to do it, ever.

    1. I tell a lot of stories and personal shit, but I never mention the minute details that allow a doxxing. Nothing good comes from that. Besides, good story telling is good because it leaves some things vague, which helps spur the imagination and allow the reader to fill in the gaps with his own personal experiences, which makes the story stick more in his memory.

  9. Around election time, I searched Google for Hillary Clinton Parkinson’s. I got a generic page with a couple of sentences describing Parkinson’s Disease. Hillary was not mentioned once. Yet, Google doesn’t do this for individuals? My ass! That bitch was running for President. And Google helped cover-up her illness (alleged illness?)! Since when is Hillary Clinton a corporation? She was a candidate, shielded from scrutiny by a corporation (Google). If you can prove me in error, then do so. Great article, Quintus.

    1. That right there is the danger. All of this information is saved, but things are scrubbed or not, based on whether you are in the “in” crowd or not. This can have some serious political consequences. I could really care less about the average joe on the street.

  10. Hey you all! Just out of curiosity, I looked up some of Taziana Cantone’s videos. Nothing special. Basically, just a ho who don’t mind if you watch!

    1. The real laws of survival:
      1. Shut the fuck up, do not tell them.
      2. If you told them, do not write it down.
      3. If you have written it down, do not sign it.
      4. If you did sign it, do not be surprised.

    1. Facebook just done that for me, accusing me I am not using my real name. Naturally I wasn’t.
      They wanted me to upload my personal documents as proof of identity.
      I sent them a letter advising them to go and fuck themselves.
      They are not letting me to access my account.
      Good riddance, probably, because Facebook could suck me in for hours. I will have more time to pump iron in the gym.

  11. sooooooo… can some one explain why the Italian woman in the article topped herself again?
    correct me if im wrong but doesnt Kim Kardasian do the same thing… every day? and she is filthy rich and still kickin’ round (sadly)

  12. What concerns me aren’t the idiots who put sex videos and such online, but rather what can be done later with discussion groups and articles out of context and time. Of course that’s done with the print media as well so it’s not exactly a new problem. We’ve seen it from what the owner of this site has experienced to Ron Paul’s old news letters, obscure hard copy publications from before the internet had any popularity. It’s those that will dig and twist that are the problem and what protection would be useful for.
    Of course there will be no protections for that, only for women who make poor decisions.

  13. I’m going to open a funeral service that offers all the regular burial services, but also employs a crack team of l33t hax0rs that will crack open your computer and all your social media accounts, and delete all the porn and unflattering pictures.

  14. A typical EU concept : meddling, not thought through, based on some bizarre idea of human rights, feminised, utterly beta …

  15. Best risk management control is one of avoidance. If you think a video, a picture or a bunch of statements you made is gonna end up a ticking time bomb, then, don’t put it up. Start praying at the altar of good judgement/

  16. Oh, you have no idea of the amount of victimization this Italian girl got on media! “she was clearly on drugs, look at her eyes… she has been clearly manipulated in making the (four!) videos by her boyfriend… it’s people who’s shared it fault!”
    What the article doesn’t mention is that this went extremely viral on whatsapp on summer 2015 because it was related to a catchphrase, something like: “Are you making a video? BravoH!” that(‘s what) she said to the guy she was blowing while mocking her beta boyfriend.
    For this catchphrase, people made tons of gadgets, mugs, t-shirts, parodies, video-selfies, remix songs, even kids were saying it.

    1. Just imagine if the guy hadn’t made and shared the video.
      She would at some point in the future say she was “raped” and if he surrendered the video to the police as evidence of consent, it would either be used against him or “disappeared” to better fit the rape narrative.

  17. It is a far better thing to lose a few bimbos to suicide than sacrifice much more for so called ‘right to be forgotten’

  18. At least this woman’s demise can serve as lessons for all of us.
    I’d haven’t used my real name in any internet forum for years now, nor my real picture, nor would I post any information about my job or anything else. These are basic safety skills we must pass on to our children.

  19. I would love a system that supported privacy. We don’t have one.
    Anything about my personal life, or my image, should not be posted anywhere without my explicit approval, and if it is posted without my approval then I have the grounds to sue the entity responsible.
    On the flip side, anything I post about myself or images of myself, belongs in the public domain the second I do so. No excuses.
    Believe me, its no fun having what you thought was a picture taken for personal use by an acquaintance posted on Facebook without my knowledge or consent. Total lack of respect.

  20. There is no right to privacy. What degree of privacy one gets is up to the individual, not the government to guarantee.

Comments are closed.