EU Court Backs 'Right To Be Forgotten' 153
NapalmV sends this news from the BBC: "The European Union Court of Justice said links to 'irrelevant' and outdated data should be erased on request. The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his privacy. Google said the ruling was 'disappointing.'" The EU Justice Commissioner said, "Companies can no longer hide behind their servers being based in California or anywhere else in the world. ... The data belongs to the individual, not to the company. And unless there is a good reason to retain this data, an individual should be empowered — by law — to request erasure of this data." According to the ruling (PDF), if a search provider declines to remove the data, the user can escalate the situation to a judicial authority to make sure the user's rights are being respected.
Slashdot stories obviously have that right, too. (Score:5, Informative)
http://search.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a glitch in the Matrix today.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
...he says while making a Matrix reference.
Unworkable (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost Nobody has a unique name.
I could be running for office, running a business, or selling my artwork, and have someone with the same name demand all link be removed when his name is keyed into the search engine.
How is Google to know which individual is being searched?
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously we're going to have to assign EVERYBODY unique names.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, AC 6763-of-93742234.
Half of slashdot disappears the minute Anonymous Coward contacts Google from a EU country.
Re: (Score:1)
Half of slashdot disappears the minute Anonymous Coward contacts Google from a EU country.
And nothing of value was lost.
Re:Unworkable (Score:5, Insightful)
Your point is valid but I've got one better. The only people that will use this will do so for what I consider nefarious purposes. Criminals, politicians you name it, if it makes the public aware of exactly what they've done they will demand to be erased.
Once the tool is created it will be available for government to use and suddenly we have the memory hole and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
I like the idea of being able to make someone like facebook delete all your personal information but that's not how this tool is going to be used. It's going to be used by a politician to force Google to delete links to all stories about an affair they had. It will be used to censor the news not to maintain privacy as claimed. Frankly it's a politicians wet dream.
Re: (Score:1)
Why nefarious? (Score:1)
These countries believe that if you did something dumb when you were 18, you should have the right to move on from it by the time you're 40. If you can't do that, there's no point in turning your life around. I can't say I entirely disagree with them--barring the obvious massive technical difficulties, it's a pretty nice thought.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should any factual information that was once public be removed? How far does this removal from the public's memory go. Are individuals also supposed to forget that something happened simply because some other person wishes that everyone forgot? Am I supposed to edit people out of pictures I might have taken?
Sounds to me like the EU is the douchebag for not accepting reality. This reminds me of the old saying about politicians thinking they have so much power that they can require the sun to not rise sim
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This has made me curious indeed because I'm a European and lately I have due to certain reasons been studying the basics of law here - mostly so that I'll know when I need a lawyer and what to ask. I knew since before that non-public people (i.e. regular people, not politicians or celebrities) have more rights to privacy than public people do. In a possible lawsuit a court will of course have to decide if someone is a public person or not.
Now, what I think the distant "ancestors" of this law are, ar
Re:Why nefarious? (Score:4, Informative)
Your example is pretty much the case that came before the court. Some lawyer went through a messy divorce and it and all the financial fallout hit the news. Since it was the most newsworthy thing he'd ever done, it was the topic of the search results on his name even years later. The articles are still live at the newspaper sites. The court isn't ordering them to take them down. They are just saying that Google can't point to the articles.
This is very bizarre. I suppose they see the book burning metaphor, so they won't force the library to take the book off the shelf and burn it. But they will force the library to remove it from the card catalog.
I understand not wanting some upskirt picture from when you were 22 years old to be the first thing people see about you when you are in your 40's and your kids are in middle school, but the EU's solution is terrible.
Charles Manson might be pretty tired of being tied to events of 40 years ago. So might Roman Polanski. That doesn't mean the government should be able to force a company like Google to corrupt their search results.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to study some more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E... [wikipedia.org]
The only exception is maliciously bringing up spent convictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Then your statement is prima facie untrue, since there is by definition no such thing as EU law on the matter.
P.S. Different from. Than should only be used with ordinal or higher types.
Re: (Score:2)
And different to should only be used in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, in principle, that people (as individuals) should not focus as much on past behavior as on recent behavior but I also believe it is up to individuals to determine how distant is the distant past. Knowing how willing someone is to admit that they made mistakes is also very enlightening as well.
An example is that if someone is going around claiming to be a certain way and looking down on anyone who isn't that way and acting as if they have never behaved otherwise, then any evidence to the contrary is
Re: (Score:2)
I like the idea of being able to make someone like facebook delete all your personal information but that's not how this tool is going to be used. It's going to be used by a politician to force Google to delete links to all stories about an affair they had. It will be used to censor the news not to maintain privacy as claimed. Frankly it's a politicians wet dream.
It would be fun if Google took the position that in order to keep something from accidentally slipping through, it has to nuke all mention of them anywhere, Just To Be Sure. How many politicians would take the bargain that erasing their misdeeds means they'll never appear again in search results, period?
Re: (Score:3)
Your point is valid but I've got one better. The only people that will use this will do so for what I consider nefarious purposes. Criminals, politicians you name it, if it makes the public aware of exactly what they've done they will demand to be erased.
How about this.... If "removal of search results" is exercised, when searching for the name a Red Banner will show up saying "The person by this name has blocked some of these search results."
Then a little link on the righthand side that says "Mor
Re: (Score:2)
Why should Google offer people a way to delve into another private individual's affairs, going back to the dawn of the internet and sometimes further, on a whim? You can't normally ask to see a random person's credit report, and it wouldn't include old bankruptcies that happened long ago anyway. You can't see their criminal record, and they are under no obligation to disclose spent convictions if applying to work for you.
Note that in many EU countries even public figures have a fair degree of privacy. The i
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unworkable (Score:4, Insightful)
So if someone breaks the law at age 16, pays their dues and has their criminal record wiped at 18 (legally the conviction is considered "spent") we shouldn't allow them to get on with their lives, become productive and law abiding members of society and contribute? Instead they should be shamed publicly online forever, just in case anyone was about to make the mistake of giving them a job or a car loan.
If someone lost their job, became ill and went bankrupt should that be held against them forever? Credit reference agencies are only allowed to keep it on file for five or six years.
All EU legal systems allow for things to be forgotten. Sure, they can't erase newspaper articles written years ago, but they can prevent companies that specialise in providing information about people from keeping that data indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually when you're a naughty boy it goes in the local newspaper. There will be microfilm of those papers somewhere. It's simply not feasible to erase them, and if you did you'd be destroying material of interest to future historians.
Now of
Re: (Score:2)
That is the key difference. You can't erase every copy of a newspaper article, but until recently it would have been very hard for someone to find out about your past from something buried in tends of thousands of microfiche.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not libel, you moron.
Re: (Score:2)
The scenario you posed it's interesting but you asked the wrong question. If a person says "searching for John Smith results in the following five search results and I'd like you to remove them" -- it doesn't matter which John Smith people were searching FOR... it only matters which John Smith they were GIVEN.
The question relating to your scenario is "how does google know that the page is about the requestor". Could be solved by making it a perjury to submit a false request, or requests go via notaries, or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's not so much about me just being able to go to google and say, remove all my results from searches.
I think it IS more about me being able to remove specific things from the search results, if they are "about me". This is probably where it gets difficult - how would I go about and prove that some thing I would like to remove from the search is genuinely about ME, not about someone else who shares my name (and might not mind).
Also, note, it's only to remove it from the search - obviously, google
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you can still find things on line. Bill Gates's mug shot [thesmokinggun.com] for a traffic violation sufficiently serious to get him hauled into custody. (Which is rare in the US, so I'm guessing DWI).
Somehow it didn't seem to harm him much.
These situations are trifling details, which do not justify the re-write of history, and do not justify the forced de-cataloging of public information. Everybody in the US knows somebody who lost their house in the recent downturn. If anything those people are more likely to be giv
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, showing one person that wasn't much harmed by it isn't really much in terms of proving the point -
- Bill Gates rise long predated the kind of easy information retrieval, we have now.
- X people in the US owning guns doesn't detract from the fact, that the US with it's liberal gun laws has the highest relative number of gun related deaths. My guess is, saying my neighbour owns a gun and I'm still alive isn't much consolation to those who have lost loved ones at the Columbine shooting or any other sh
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, I can get information about all those other Jason Levine's off the Internet. There can be only one Jason Levine!
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore does this mean if a politician says something super dumb/racist/crass they can actually force news outlets to not report on it?
Re: (Score:2)
But they can force Google to remove the link to the news media's site.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the entire ruling from the EU court. Have you?
It is NOT sufficiently explained. They don't address the fact that names are common AT ALL.
Do they really expect every single search engine hit to now be adjudicated in court?
Dupe (Score:1)
Slashdot court backs the right of editors to forget which stories have already been posted.
Google.eu Homepage (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Europe,
You have been forgotten by Google.
Seriously, that's what I would do. How long would this law stay around? I mean I understand there are people who wish annoyingly stupid things in the past weren't tied to their names, but the legalization of the right to forget is a slippery slope (i.e. Stalin photoshopped Trotsky out of his photos) with plenty of examples of why revisionism is a bad idea. I sympathize with the originator of the idea, but if we are led to believe that most people are honest and decent, then a simple explanation is all that would be in order to understand his plight. To those ignorant who would see something on Google and blindly discriminate against individuals forever, I think it says more about society's inability to have mercy, then the need to enforce an unenforceable right to be forgotten. What next? When we determine how to erase memories, everyone will have to sit in the chair to forget about stuff like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google.eu Homepage (Score:4, Informative)
It's one thing to get Google to take down a link to information that can be used for identity theft, or to information that is libelous, or to information that can put you in harm's way.
The plaintiff in this case, however, wanted Google to take down information that was absolutely true and in no way useful for identity theft. He just wanted the information taken down because he didn't like it. There's no way Google should have been forced to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a minimal protection like the search engine eliminating all names from the searchable index, unless, of course, at indexing time they were found to be enclosed in special HTML tags saying "this name should be indexed"? If the information gets unintentionally on the net, most likely the tags won't be there. On the other hand if you create a p
Re: (Score:2)
Why should personal info appear on internet when it was never your intention to put it there?
It wasn't personal information; it was public information. And you might as well ask: Why should newspapers be allowed to report anything about you? Let's face it, some newspapers (tabloids, for example) publish intensely personal information about people and while many find it distasteful, no-one is suggesting that the tabloids should be censored.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, it's not necessarily true that newspapers publish intensely personal information only about public servants and celebrities. I've read plenty of stories with personal information about "average guys".
Secondly, why should public servants and celebrities be any less entitled to privacy than anyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that the McCanns, Milly Dowler & her family, or Chris Jefferies were celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't personal information in many cases, this is public information (made public via court records, reporting, etc). We aren't talking about a listing saying "John Smith lives at 321 Maple Blvd and his SSN is 123-45-6789." We're talking about a listing like "John Smith was convicted of fraud in 2008 when he tried selling five people the same house. He served five
Re: (Score:2)
His problem was that although credit agencies had removed any mention of his bankruptcy (as per the law, after a certain time you no longer have to declare it and agencies can't keep it on file, to stop being being ruined for life) it was easy for anyone to find that information with Google.
Re: (Score:2)
My concern is what about public information that is commonly considered high value, should that be forgotten? In this particular case it was about an old news story. Should Google be required to remove links that pointed to online copies of a newspaper? Should physical copies of the newspapers in libraries be redacted?
I laughed because one of the comments in the BBC news article was from someone who claimed his political views over time had changed, and implied that he didn't want people to see his old v
Re: (Score:2)
Why not. Wasn't that the job of the protagonist in "1984"?
Counterproductive (Score:2)
So this decision actually makes it harder for the little guy to find out there's bad data about him floating around out there, so he can go about getting it fixed. The next guy in his shoe
RE: Counterproductive (Score:2)
Google isn't the one presenting the data...
This is not claimed by the article. While Google was the one sued the article says that the ruling applies to any search provided who receives a complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
Would this apply to any website with in-site search capabilities? Including any blog?
Suppose, on my self-hosted WordPress blog, I make a post about John Smith criticizing him for something he did. Now, a year later, John Smith happens to come across this post. Can he order me to exclude my post from my site's search listings? While I'm technically inclined and might be able to figure out how to do this, most bloggers would not be. So they would need to remove the post entirely or edit it to remove the
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't the one presenting the data.
Google is presenting it, in the form of an annotated summary or index, or however you'd like to word it.
So this decision actually makes it harder for the little guy to find out there's bad data about him floating around out there, so he can go about getting it fixed.
So because I "could" request my data be deleted, Google will preemptively not index it? No, you are confusing things. This will make it no harder for the "little guy" to find bad stuff about himself, but will make it harder for others to accidentally run across "bad stuff" someone wants forgotten.
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point was valid. Sure, Google may end up having to comply. And their results will become less reliable because of it.
So what happens next? If the data is valuable, and the results from Google (and other public sites) becomes unreliable, how long before Experian or some other data aggregator begins selling their own version of uncorrupted search results and personal data that you don't get to see and edit?
Equally valid, if this really does become an issue with the big search engines, how long
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens next? If the data is valuable, and the results from Google (and other public sites) becomes unreliable, how long before Experian or some other data aggregator begins selling their own version of uncorrupted search results and personal data that you don't get to see and edit?
Like the site that emails me telling me I have a publicly indexed criminal record (a speeding ticket I beat in court 10+ years ago - tickets were crimes in Texas at the time). For a fee, they'd "delete" my record on their indexing site. Blackmail pure and simple. So I ignored them. It'd be nice if such "indexing" sites could be ordered to stop perfoming blackmail. They wanted money to stop a harm created by them.
Equally valid, if this really does become an issue with the big search engines, how long before everybody starts using the new startup from Indonesia or the Phillipines?
How would that help? If it's illegal in France to not delete when ordered to do so, are th
This is bullshit (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't work in the US, where free speech trumps all, and "privacy" doesn't exist, but other places have different priorities of rights (though, rarely less rights, just different assignments o
Re: (Score:2)
What if someone wishes to remove all that information, period. Or denying access to it. From physical magazines and newspapers, from halls of records, criminal reports, photocopies of correspondence, and so on. What makes the internet different in this regard, other than that some people mistakenly think it is easy to do on the internet?
The information does not belong to the aggregator OR to the person the information is about. The information belongs to the content creator (who sometimes has a copyrigh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case in the US, that's an important distinction between the USA and Europe: Personal information belongs to a person, not to any content creator. So-called content creators are not allowed to publish information about me that I haven't approved. Content aggregators like search engines are not al
Re: (Score:2)
So the "public domain" is not actually public but belongs to individuals. That is, if I place a work of art or code or whatever into the public domain, then I can later redact it from the public domain and demand that anyone who has copied it destroy their copies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Court cases are a matter of public record. They belong to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try. However:
1) in civilized countries[1] sealed cases are very much the exception.
2) this clearly wasn't a sealed case, or it wouldn't have been in the newspaper record to start with.
Why don't you go out and do some heel-toe gearchanges in your automatic while running red lights and falling asleep, you fat imbecile?
[1] OK, that's stretching it - it was Greece.
Re: (Score:2)
1) in civilized countries[1] sealed cases are very much the exception.
So (nearly) every country is uncivilized when it comes to treating children? Most have some manner of purging or hiding (sealing) juvenile convictions.
this clearly wasn't a sealed case, or it wouldn't have been in the newspaper record to start with.
Show me where I stated this case was or should have been sealed. Oh, I didn't. You are strawmaning me. Why can't you just address what I say, not what you lie about to make me look bad because you are always wrong?
Why don't you go out and do some heel-toe gearchanges in your automatic while running red lights and falling asleep, you fat imbecile?
Oh, so you are the AC that was stalking me with those lies for so long. Why do you feel the need to lie in your ad hominems? Offended that I'
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that Google Cache doesn't exist? How's sticking your head in the sand working for you?
No bullshit at all (Score:2)
Do judges understand the Internet? (Score:2)
There is a right to remove the reference on a search engine but the source still exists...
How many search engines are there?
Juristriction over a particular search engine is from where?
Nice try!
Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it (Score:2)
Really, why is the EU even considering this?
I can sympathize with somebody who has done something in the past that they wish other people would forget about, but I can all to easily see the ramifications of implementing this leading well into historical negationism [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certain a lot of former prison guards at concentration camps would have loved to have had the ability expunge old records that would be used in the future to implicate them. Whoops, EU newspapers have a bad opinion of a third world dictator, so now he can sue to have them "forget" it all. Pop singer decides to switch to Christian rock instead, so sues to remove all old information about her that would detract from the new image being created.
Re: (Score:2)
And no, there is no formal definition what is a person or action of public interest. This will be decided by courts on a case-by-case decision. As it should be, humans should judge, not algorithms.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is funny because the case was decided about a lawyer who wanted to expunge results pointing to news articles about court proceedings involving his personal life and finances. You know, public records that the government maintains and provides to the public.
Truly the court has a dizzying intellect.....
Sure thing (Score:1)
Winston... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't this show up in preview? (not a coder, so I genuinely don't understand.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one. [Glances at CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal]
Terrible decision (Score:2)
Sure, at first glance it looks good, but really this is a bad decision. We're going to see Scientologists demanding removal of any anti-Scientology material. The whole thing is a bit Stalinesque... people feel they have the right to erase the past just as Stalin erased those who fell out of favor from photographs.
Once what you do is in the public record, it's out there. You have no more right to demand its removal from the Internet than you do to demand libraries cut out articles about you from archive
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the anti-Scientology material does not belong to the Scientologists. The copyright owners of such material are the critics of Scientology. So the removal request will be denied.
However, you should have the right to remove stuff from the internet that
a) You own
and
b) Did not intend to publish (eg: internet search phrases)
Re: (Score:2)
The material the plaintiff in this case wanted removed was not owned by him. It was simply the fact that at some point in the past, his home had been foreclosed --- a matter of public record.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you think of some compelling reason for Google to inform anyone on the planet that searches for some ordinary person's name that they had financial problems and couldn't pay their mortgage in the 90s? Or that they had an embarrassing illness? That they were sexually assaulted?
If these things are a matter of public record, then Google should serve them up in a search. If they were not a matter of public record and someone posted them maliciously, maybe you'd have a point.
The problem is that once we
Re: (Score:2)
Many of us on this side have been able to request information be corrected or deleted from data controllers for like 25 years
If the plaintiff successfully got the information corrected or deleted from the official public record, then I would be 100% behind his fight to get Google not to serve it up in a search result.
But he didn't do that. He just didn't want Google serving up search results to information he didn't like. Not untrue information; not information that should have been deleted... just i
Re: (Score:2)
Just like I don't get to see your mother's medical records, or your cousin's mental health admissions details or that you didn't pay your cable bill for 3 months in 1999.
My mother's medical records or cousin's mental health admissions details are not public records; they are private medical information. If those ever ended up on the Internet, then yes: I would fight to have them taken down and fight to have Google not return them.
The cable bill case may or may not be a matter of public record, dependi
Re: (Score:2)
Scientology is not a person
You are not thinking creatively enough. :) In the USA, corporations have many of the rights of a person. And the Scientologists could easily find creative lawyers who could reasonably claim that the anti-Scientology material names names and is therefore hurting particular people.
Re: (Score:2)
If it was easy for Scientology to do these things, why don't you show me some examples of it being done?
How Scientology changed the internet [bbc.com].
There ya go.
No Problem (Score:2)
NapalmV sends this news from the BBC: "The European Union Court of Justice said links to 'irrelevant' and outdated data should be erased on request.
No sweat. There's no such thing as irrelevant or outdated data. Problem solved.
The right to remember (Score:3)
Any "right to be forgotten" needs to be accompanied by a "right to remember". Information legitimately published should never have to be removed from the web or pruned from search results. Information disclosed illegally is, of course, a different matter, but legitimate information, once published, should never be suppressed.
Yesterdays decision is a blow to freedom of speech. It allows sweeping factual, legitimately published information under the rug simply because the subject doesn't like the fact that the information is public. It is censorship and nothing less.
Re: (Score:2)
The so-called "right to be forgotten" would be more accurately described as the "right to force other people to forget". There is no such right, as you point out.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone already has the right to remember something. It is as simple as saving the web page or printing it to PDF.
How can anyone exercise their "right" to "be forgotten" if saving local copies is allowed?
Nobody can stop you saving it.
Although this particular legislation doesn't ban that, laws already exist making it illegal to make local copies of certain content. Plugging the "local copy" loophole would be the next step.
The summary says that LINKS to outdated and irrelevant information should be removed on request. It doesn't say anything about the data itself.
You left out the quotes around the word "irrelevant", which were there because it's subjective. Who gets to decide that? Same for "outdated", even there were no quotes in the article.
Thus if a newspaper publishes a story about you being drunk at college when you're 21, in 20 years time you might ask Google to delete the link from its cache (the link is now to outdated and irrelevant information)
Even if said person is about to run for public
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR: To ensure a level playing field between ordinary people and the rich/powerful, information access should be either easy or impossible, and the second option is out.
Why so few comments? (Score:4, Interesting)
I find it really strange that so few people have commented on this - this has the potential for huge impacts on the quality of information available on the Internet!
As far as I can see, the court must be populated by judges that have zero clue how the Internet works. The particular case that provoked the decision: A Spanish man went bankrupt, and his house was auctioned off. This is part of the public record in Spain (in particular, it appears in newspaper articles) and Google - obviously - has indexed this public information and provides links to it.
The court does not say that the newspaper articles must be removed - in fact, they are specifically allowed to remain. The court says that Google may be told not to link to those pages, when given a search on this person's name.
So now individual people can tell search engines "I don't like that link, delete it"? Even though the information is publicly available and objectively, factually true? Does this make any sense?
How will this scale, when millions of people want to edit their lives in the Internet? How are these requests supposed to be checked? First, what is the definition of "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant" information? Second, how do you determine whether the person making the request is the person affected (especially given the possibility of shared names)?
Finally, what effect will this have on search results? What you want to hide may be exactly what I really need to know! Why does this businessman think his previous bankruptcy is irrelevant - is that not precisely the kind of information that his potential customers and/or employers are legitimately interested in?
This decision demonstrates appalling technical ignorance on the part of the court, and has the potential to seriously screw up the concepts behind public search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As you say the idea that banks and other financial institutions are doing credit checks by doing internet searches is laughable. The guy got into financial difficulties, this went into his credit reference, it will likely stay there for ever as it is relevant information.
The question then has to be how does the fact that Mr Gonzalez put his house up for auction which is factually correct information actually harm him? You can put property on the market for a million reasons all of which are perfectly legiti
My server, my rules, my rights (Score:2)
If I want to talk about you on my server, that is fine, I have a right to free speech that trumps your right over there. I can give any details I know about you and keep it up indefinitely. You do, of course have the right to request that I take it down, that is your right. So,try this experiment and make note of the outcome; request as well as you can, in one hand and shit as much as you can in the other hand; note which hand will fill up first...
Re: (Score:2)
Big talk for Anonymous fool, use your nick, your word is your tool.
Erase away, they come back the very next day in a very new way, hooray!
My Bill of Rights win the fights , now you can eat all I shite.