What everybody here seems to miss, is that the right to be forgotten is aimed at you right to ask a company to delete all personal data they have on you.
The question then is, how does this apply to search engines/indexers? I don't think it necessarily should, however since 'indexers' are not a recognized role in data processing laws, it takes some case law to figure these things out properly.
By the letter of the law, if something about me is indexed by google, they are processing my personal data and I have the right to ask them to stop doing that and delete it. Realistically though, this can lead to abuse by public people same as the DCMA does for companies.
So, still some work to be done. But I am glad that I have a legal way to force for instance a marketing deparment to stop harassing me with spam mail/calls. In practice, the threat of making a official request is often enough to motivate them ;)
Seems like a transitive bit of reasoning might be a useful law here.
If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to delete it, facebook should do so. If an indexer like google has indexed it, then they should delete it too. Profile photos are an instance.
If I am the subject of a public interest news story, then I don't think I can ask them to forget me, so maybe in that case I can't ask google to forget me either?
I could then ask google to forget something if and only if I could ask the underlying content publisher to forget it.
I think what this case is saying is that Google only has to "forget" that thing in the EU. It's free to keep that information on its servers in Asia and the US for instance. In fact, we can imagine actual legal situations in places like Singapore or the US where that data has to remain available. So I think this just clarifies that it doesn't have to work for every server everywhere in the world.
>If I post a photo to facebook with "public" settings, then later want to delete it, facebook should do so. If an indexer like google has indexed it, then they should delete it too. Profile photos are an instance.
I'm not sure I agree with that. It's certainly valid for them to retain a snapshot of that time with the profile photo available. Or are you suggesting they are expected to alter/modify snapshots (or log data) to cater to after-the-fact decisions?
You post a photo to facebook. You accidentally have the wrong sharing settings, which you notice too late. Should there be no ability to change your mind? We're operating in this "once it's online, it's out of your control" but that's a new kind of thing, and it's shitty.
> We're operating in this "once it's online, it's out of your control" but that's a new kind of thing, and it's shitty.
It's new? I think it's always been like that since the dawn of the internet (and before if you substitute "online" for "published"). The idea that you should have a right to force other entities to forget public information that they saw is what seems to be new.
> You accidentally have the wrong sharing settings, which you notice too late. Should there be no ability to change your mind?
Well, it's like accidentally telling someone a secret and then wishing there was legislature to force them to forget what you told them (assuming we have a technology for human memory deletion).
This is mostly how things already work under EU rules. Neither the original "right to be forgotten" established by a significant court case, which in fact did relate to systems like search engines, nor the subsequent "right to erasure" under the GDPR creates an unrestricted power for data subjects to require all data about them to be deleted regardless of circumstances. For example, you can't take out a bank loan and then force the bank to erase all records of it.
There is at least one significant deviation from your "transitive" reasoning, though, in that while EU law might not extend to an original source that is providing misleading/harmful data about someone but is based elsewhere, it can still affect those providing indirect access to that data who are within the scope of EU law.
Suppose that you are the subject of a public interest story, where you randomly witch-hunted as, let's say, a 'pedo guy'.
Suppose that once the dust settles, the facts turn out to be entirely in your favor, and a the publications that ran hit pieces against you quietly issue retractions.
What will happen when I search Google for '6gvONxR4sf7o'? Maybe because you are interviewing to work for me?
I'm going to be bombarded with three pages of search results that loudly proclaim you to be a criminal, a moral degenerate, and possibly even a horse thief.
Is it in the public interest for incorrect information about you to be an incredibly prominent part of your public record?
(Bonus points: You can run a lucrative business by poisoning someone's search results, by, say, including their name and alleged wrong-doings in a 'mugshot database', and then demanding that the target pay you money to get removed from this 'mugshot database'... Should search engines be allowed to play their part in this form of extortion?)
I don't really find arguments like yours persuasive. Why should there be such a wide, sweeping law for something that's so obviously a corner case? It's not like there are millions of people being publicly "witch-hunted" every year… What's the everyday use case for this? Getting off of marketing mailing lists?
But that's just the thing: I don't recall there being laws specifically against "mass murder". It'd just be multiple counts of murder. I could be wrong though.
I agree with you, but think it might be an orthogonal question. I'm saying we could resolve the indexer question transitively. You're talking about the content question, where I agree you should be able to set the record straight. That one's a can of worms, so I tried to sidestep it.
the problem ist, that if google wants to "forget" your data, they need to save two things.
- the data they need to "forget"
- the request for forgetting the data
google is just an index over sites, if they do NOT want to remove things, google will index it forever.
thus thats why I hate the "right to be forgotten" law. it uses the wrong approach. it targets google, which does not provide the data. unfortunatly most often people want to silence news outlets which do not NEED to remove the data. so its extremly complicated.
I dislike both and I think the law should remove data from the web if it targets people and is relatively old (discussable). This would eliminate the problem completly AND all search engines would need to stop it.
Or better implement a banned.txt or something that news outlets/sites need to implement if they are targeted, so that even archives can remove the data.
all in all the law is pretty stupid in its current state. because it does not fix the problem it just duck tapes it.
The real problem is that it's fairly easy to get random websites to delete info about you. It really is. I contacted maybe 30 websites in the last year or so and all deleted/or hidden my information promptly without any questions.
Getting it THEN deleted from google/bing/and friends is freaking annoying. They act like they're some superimportant holders of knowledge, and require all kind of identification, personal information, ID document copies, whatever, just to even listen to you.
There's outdated link removal console for both search engines, but it only works if websites are implemented certain way, to properly return 404 error on no longer existing pages. Some websites will redirect non-existing urls to home page, and good luck getting anything removed from search engines then. They will refuse, because the page still exists. They will not even check that the page has changed.
>They act like they're some superimportant holders of knowledge, and require all kind of identification, personal information, ID document copies, whatever, just to even listen to you.
Google's real issue isn't that they have some deep ideological conviction to free speech. This isn't 1998-2008 Google anymore, all the "free speech" libertarians have either left the company or retired rich.
Their real issue is that a zero marginal cost business, like a search engine, is starting to have some costs now. Their opposition to these types of laws is about preserving their high margin, infinitely scalable business model. That may have been the primary motivator in the early years of Google as well, the ideology may have just been grafted on later.
Yeah, it's really easy to prove you have a valid request on the internet, if the real people are processing your request. When I assumed some website would liked more verification that I actually owned the domain before asking for removal, I just put the text into a file hosted on the domain, and there was no problem.
But that requires having people process your request and having un-structured request medium, like accepting e-mails on some preferred address.
And it looks like google liks to avoid having an unstructured input from random plebes, presumably to avoid expensive human labor.
As far as I can tell the only logical reason is political. It would be far less popular to force news organizations, which might be influential and local, to delete data than forcing an unpopular foreign corporation to do it.
Related factoid: a commonly accepted approach to GDPR compliance for those who have backups (that are retained for longer than the GDPR grace period) is to store enough information about the request to delete someone's data so that during the restore procedure the data can be deleted again.
> The question then is, how does this apply to search engines/indexers?
The bigger issue I think is that Google is already enjoying such position of deciding who and what is visible in the indexes. This is about giving similar option to the person whose data is indexed.
This law is really terrible, but maybe decisions like this will help abolish it. After all, if one can find the information with a VPN, it becomes less useful to enforce this law and people who want to change their record will do it the old way, applying to the person publishing the information or the courts to get it removed instead of getting it delistet in search engines.
>This law is really terrible, but maybe decisions like this will help abolish it. After all, if one can find the information with a VPN, it becomes less useful to enforce this law
Should we really only enact laws when they can be enforced worldwide?
I don’t think people should be able to cover up the truth. That’s rotten. If there are lies about you, that’s covered by slander law.
Not letting others know things that are true that reflect poorly on you is though is a different story.
Take for instance the since-freed murderers who have used the law to hide their past actions. I don’t think that is something you should have the right to ask the world to forget.
I might be missing the forest for the trees here, but I strongly dislike your example. In a country with a working justice system, the expectation is that after you are done with your prison sentence you are rehabilitated. Making it more difficult for ex-cons to reenter society only leads to further recidivism. I am aware that the US does not have such a justice system, but for many countries in Northwest Europe this is a reality and this law makes sense there.
Basically, I have no problem with only law-enforcement having a record of the past mistakes of reformed people, assuming that 1) law enforcement is actually "serving and protecting" and 2) the justice systems ensures a high fraction of cons are actually reformed.
And in the US, when dealing with private individuals (not the government's ability to collect and use information), the situations where truth isn't an absolute defense are extremely rare. Even the unidirectional right of private recording varies from state to state.
This is a fundamental philosophical difference between the US and much of Europe. I'm not sure precisely from where it arises (though I suspect it stems from a combination of the US government tracing its historical roots to Enlightenment-era thinking on personal liberty and the English government having a law against sedition; the American colonies organizing a rebellion in spite of that law).
I think he's suggesting they went to prison and were released, and he'd like to be able to access someone's criminal record before hiring them as a babysitter.
I understand that, yes. But is the implication that they were released incorrectly?
There's nothing that makes murder specifically relevant to babysitting. If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job. So they'd be unhireable. Which in practice is more or less the same as "they should still be in prison".
Saying someone shouldn't be a babysitter is a long way from saying they should still be in prison, or even from saying they're unhireable. Different jobs require different kinds and degrees of trust - it isn't that black and white.
> If the implication is they wouldn't be hired, that implication applies to every job.
Unhirable for one, high trust job doesn't mean unhirable for every job. For example, I don't care if a sex offender washes my dishes at a restaurant, but I wouldn't want them teaching my preschoolers.
A babysitting job isn't very demanding, or we wouldn't have so many teenagers doing it. If someone seems to be qualified, then they probably are. If you're okay with hiring a murderer in general, I don't think they're notably less likely to babysit correctly. Let me know if I'm wrong here? (If you're not okay with hiring a murderer in general, then ignore this comment.)
For a sex offender, it depends on what kind. For example, a former prostitute is no less qualified than anyone else. But sure, some kinds are relevant, and should disqualify people from a narrow slice of jobs.
The problem is when people have supposedly served their time but can't get 95% of jobs.
I personally think that no murderer should ever be released from prison, no matter how rehabilitated. However, given that this is not policy, I would rather have released murderers working in the oil fields or sawmills, or anywhere very far from me, not in my home with my fucking kid.
So then would you agree that when it comes to people that should have been released, you don't need to know what their past crimes were? At least when they're not specifically relevant to the job?
Is there some dissonance when you say "reactionary American"? I am not certain whether you are showing some form of self-deprecating self-awareness or whether you are preemptively trying to make fun of a legitimate argument against your position. And for what is worth, plenty of Americans believe in the importance of rehabilitation (instead of punishment) - it is even supposedly what Christianity teaches, which seems to be pretty important in this country.
Christianity is very important to lots of Americans but “turn the other cheek” or “blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” are empirically not among the operating principles of the American government or criminal justice system.
> it is even supposedly what Christianity teaches, which seems to be pretty important in this country
Ah, the old "I'm not a Christian and think it's stupid and backwards, so this argument won't work on me, but maybe this argument will work on you and you'll do what I want" approach.
I sincerely do not get what you mean? Obviously I have said something unpleasant or tone deaf, but that was not my goal and I would certainly appreciate you telling me what sounded bad. As for your assumption about me: I am not spiritual, but I do find Christian philosophy and Jesus's teachings to be good and try to follow them.
I see. When a neo-nazi builds a database of the jewish population and it gets indexed by Google or somebody else you are totally ok with it because it is the truth and it is not covered by slander law. Or you just did not think about this?
That seems to be inspiring a lot of obfuscutory controversy. Take instead, for instance, a contractor with tons of negative reviews or lawsuits brought by former clients and who doesn't want any of that information posted anywhere.
It moves responsibility from the publisher to the indexer.
Essentially, it's like your privacy rights were violated in a novel, so instead of going after the publisher to cease and desist, you sue every single library (and technically every non-organizational owner of said novel) to burn their copy.
Well, it's actually like there is just 1 novel in somebody's basement which noone will ever stumble upon... unless it's in top 3 hits when looking up your name at the one single library that everyone is using.
In addition to that, the responsibility to decide what should be taken down/delisted is also moved from the publisher/courts of law to the indexer, so there is no due process.
Computers drastically change the scope of what's possible. They allow us to do things on scales that were unimaginable before. There are orders of magnitude more data in Google's index than in every book that has ever existed. Heck, flip the question to the other side of the table — is government mass surveillance acceptable because it's OK for a police officer to overhear things? Regardless of where you stand on either issue, it seems pretty clear that the change of scope and scale can drastically change the moral calculus.
But Google is just indexing published works. It would be like forcing the library to hide all results for George Orwell. Google isn't collecting data about you, the publishers are. Google just lets other people easily find it.
Justify that "just"! To me there seems to be a huge practical difference between information about someone being online somewhere and that information being made available to anyone who types that person's name into a browser.
It would be a lot easier if newspapers could stop printing names of people who are not public figures. In some countries newspapers already don't do that. No doubt it's highly titillating for people to read about how AB was brutally raped and how XY has been arrested as a suspect (XY being released without charge the next day may or may not be considered newsworthy), but surely the story would be just as titillating without the names? Then we wouldn't have to argue about how to stop Google from indexing those names.
The "easily find it" part is the bigger problem facing us in modern times. Companies are collecting all these scraps of info into huge databases on people. The problem isn't an old newspaper article in a basement.
To clarify the principles behind the law it might be useful to perform a thought experiment. Imagine that there existed people with extraordinary abilities to absorb and recall knowledge -- think Kim Peek. These people could conceivably read the newspaper archives with near-perfect recall -- essentially becoming a walking search engine. Would it then be desired to restrict these people from offering research services to other people?
I'm not sure how enlightening this is. Such a person would be allowed places that cameras aren't. They would be allowed to listen when microphones can't be used. It's a combination of intractability and that 1:1 human effort has natural limits on it; it's not like buying a big computer that's as invasive as a thousand humans.
But even then, it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest that if they're selling background check services then they have to abide by some restrictions.
If we want to enforce human limits on digital tech then digital anything has to be policed.
Are recordings from all the cameras in the EU policed for the right to be forgotten? No. Probably because there's no aggregator similar to Google for them.
I don't know about the rest of the EU but where I live... yes, cameras are also subjected under: privacy laws, the right to be forgotten, etc.
If your camera caught someone doing something illegal, turn it over to the police and let them handle it. If you publish the footage, you're likely to get prosecuted and fined. You don't have to agree because it's a cultural thing. Where I live privacy actually matters.
For a start I'd expect such an individual to take responsibility to not misrepresent the available facts. If there were accusations that turned out wrong I'd expected the corrected record to be offered prominently unless something else is requested explicitly. And I do not think googles algorithms can perform that level of content curation. Maybe accidentally by proxy, like e.g. due to an increased recency bias. But this isn't really what I want either...
> I don't see how it's different from: if it's in a book somewhere I have the right to find and read it.
But you don't have that.
Even if it's published, copyright can interfere. If it's not published, you very much don't have that right.
There is no general-purpose right to know things about people.
It's by default fine if you find someone that wants to tell you something. But that doesn't itself make it okay to collate a database of information about millions of people.
This is great! It means we're able to have states that care about privacy pushing the boundary on how we can regulate to achieve this without landing in an cross-jurisdictional nightmare.
While we all are busy talking about this, has anyone thought about this - Is Google still sticking to its original motto of organizing the world's information?
How does this apply on the basis of the content's origin? If google indexes content hosted in france, transmits (exports) that data to canada, and then the french person whose content it is (or is about) requests it be forgotten, is that any different from the same story except the content is hosted in canada? I'm thinking about a french outlet reporting the same news as a canadian one.
It seems reasonable to have some kind of "export" controls, like if you want to index our country's data, you have to abide by our content laws regarding it. Meanwhile, we'll let you do whatever with data you index from elsewhere. You can't show Canadians the forgotten French story, but you can still show them the Canadian paper's version of it. And if you don't abide by that, we won't let google canada export this data from france in the first place.
Under the EU data protection regime, it's already the step where you export personal data to somewhere outside that matters in your scenario. There are obligations on those exporting personal data to places beyond the EEA ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to protect it to an equivalent standard.
This is somewhat controversial, because arguably it is impossible to meet that standard if you export to somewhere like the US, where there are laws allowing the national government to obtain personal data from those within its own reach, which no contractual safeguards or similar provisions can override. EU nations have similar rules, but only recognise their own national security interests as a valid reason to override the normal protections, not the analogous interests of any third country (that is, country that isn't an EU member state). The UK now has similar concerns in connection with Brexit.
As incomplete as it is, fining google france for google canada's use of illegally exported data seems great then. You want the EU market, you abide by EU export laws.
I think the EU is right to take a serious attitude to data privacy even if it doesn't always get it exactly right. These are new issues and the other approach is the the US approach which means tolerating the likes of Equifax et al data breaches with no real compensation or recourse. So I'd take the EU apprach with its flaws over the US approach with its flaws.
The law just seems to target the problem much too late in the chain of events.
For example, in Germany, people have a right to anonymity, that forbids newspapers to identify persons (print full names, photos, addresses) unless making them public would be in the public interest. While this isn't perfect and of course open to interpretation, it seems to me that having privacy protections (and due process where they fail) is much better lawmaking than trying the fix things down the road when the privacy is already breached. Especially if the fixes are this ham-fisted.
> The Lumen database collects and analyzes legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials, helping Internet users to know their rights and understand the law. These data enable us to study the prevalence of legal threats and let Internet users see the source of content removals.
You can search it for references to the right to be forgotten[1], although the results will not contain full URLs of the removal requests.
"How about an archive (outside the EU) of every Right To Be Forgotten request, and links to what was not to be remembered."
Google AMP will cache (store?) outside of the EU all pages using that service, and the Internet Archive might store pages before any deletion request, but they're not subject to EU laws. What a mess....
edit: I welcome any move directed at protecting people privacy, but this seems clearly made by people who don't have a clue about the involved technical problems and would attempt to solve every issue by ordering to block traffic to or from some places (when the only tool you know is a hammer...).
I should have the right to remove embarrassing things I've done 20 years ago when I was a teenager from a public indexer, the same way I can request the phone book to delist my phone number: this does not mean that the phone company has to delete my number, it just cannot be indexed.
A stupid example? just put a "like" on Medium next to an article regarding something that embarrasses you and few days later that article will appear on Google when looking for your name, and then you would love to have the GDPR at your disposal to permanently delete your Medium account.
> phone numbers are not personal, embarrassing stories
Right, which makes the right to be forgotten even more important than the right to be removed from a phone book.
When you're disputing an analogy, the discrepancies have to actually be relevant and support your point. You can just say "you can't compare A and B because A is not B."
With "Right to be forgotten" now applying to proper news, I think it's great that this Orwellian rewriting of history is spared on most of the world.
I'm sure you've seen news articles from 100 years ago describing relevant aspects about history, with lessons and describing how we became the society that we are. "Right to be forgotten" wants history to be ephemeral.
You have no right (in the EU) to write about true facts from your life, for future generations, if anybody finds that truth embarrassing.
I think that's scary as fuck, and a greater danger to freedom and democracy than Trump, Johnson, Kim, and Putin combined.
I hope that for your own sake, you are never in a position where you are unable to find work because employers stumble across false allegations made against you that are shown as the top result for your name on Google search.
Because that's a very real thing that happens to a large number of people who have made enemies through ex-lovers, jilted coworkers, and just garden variety online trolls that maybe didn't take kindly to a random post you made online somewhere.
But unlike the downvoters (including you?) I'm not willing to throw freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, and the right to know the past all out the window for this.
This is book-burning on a massive scale. When you retire and write your memoirs you will not be allowed to put in true facts that you can prove.
If the right to be forgotten is indeed a right, then that story you wrote about "you show me yours I'll show you mine" justifies busting in to the home of everyone who bought your book in order to put in on the bonfire. It's as if your life is under a national security gag order, and you'll never be allowed to tell what you did not just in the CIA, but anywhere with anyone.
> Because that's a very real thing that happens to a large number of people who have made enemies through ex-lovers, jilted coworkers, and just garden variety online trolls that maybe didn't take kindly to a random post you made online somewhere.
There are already laws against the actions I think you're implying here.
While one might want to remove false allegations by an ex, the next might call an expose of their corruption as a local politician false allegations.
As with many things, it is all a double edged sword. Medical confidentiality? Great! Until the patient is a commercial pilot, the doctor his psych that tells him he should not be flying and the pilot decides to not tell his boss and fly his plane with everyone aboard into a mountain... (Happened a few years back)
We have to balance risks & rewards with these kinds of laws.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Psychologists are one instance where medical confidentiality would help. Making people make a trip to their local clinic to hear the results of their X-ray of their broken leg because nurses can't tell you anything over the phone is fucking asinine. Surely, there are shades of gray here to be recognized.
Did I understand that correctly: Google France "forgets" about things that I would like it to forget but Google Canada still knows? Shouldn't it be more about that if I'm European, I have the right to be forgotten, so all the information that I want to be removed should be removed, no matter which engine is used?
Google is an indexer, therefore it searches for information on the internet that correlates or is @tonyjstark. If you ask your government for a 'Rights to be Forgotten', they will request for everyone in their jurisdiction to remove you from it. Google EU and others then have to remove the indexed information associated with you. However, Google US, Bing Colombia, etc are not in your jurisdiction, so it can still index the information associated with you. Also, if the website that is being indexed is not within EU jurisdiction or has been copied elsewhere, then it also falls outside of EU jurisdiction.
If legislation like these ones could encompass the whole world, certain powerful countries, corporations, individuals, etc would use it to ensure that only what was beneficial to them would be indexed, searchable and available.
> If you ask your government for a 'Rights to be Forgotten', they will request for everyone in their jurisdiction to remove you from it.
That's not how this works. You ask the entity in question to remove your data.
You only ask your "government" to enforce that right if everything else fails. You're already assuming bad faith from the entity. Some requests are actually reasonable and when you talk to a human they will do it if you have a good reason.
So a French person can demand that a Canadian company must prevent Canadians from finding information about them?
Maybe it makes sense that if the Canadian company is serving content to France they have to abide by the French rules, but I don't see any kind of case for blanket removal. Neither does the EU for that matter. Take note that the ruling says basically Google had to make it hard for a French person to access the Canadian version of their engine.
No, and that's specifically what this ruling is about: a French person cannot demand that a Canadian company prevent Canadians from finding information about them.
On the other end, a French person can demand that a Canadian company prevent French people from finding information about them (some exceptions might apply though). The Canadian company can also choose not to do business with the EU, in which case it doesn't have to abide by EU rules (some sites decided to do exactly that when GDPR rolled out).
Not quite. The information is never removed in either case, just not listed in the search results. The newspaper article is still online but does not show up for Europeans, no matter which engine is used.
I have already used the "Right to be forgotten", but a lot of websites updates the url as soon as anything about you change. Which means you need to apply again if you for example change address, name or similar things.
Where I am from, there are many websites that display your personal information (social security number, address, phone numbers etc) since the state gives it away for free and there is no way to block this. The fault is really not Googles, but at least this tool lets people get some peace since most of the people where I am from only use Google and when you are removed you are basically invisible.
This is highly annoying, especially when you have been subject to criminals, but I get it. It is hard to block something else than a url.
Why do you downvote me? I shine a light on an actual valid use case for this. The state publishes information that you cannot remove as a citizen.
HN has become so one-sided. I don't even know if I agree with the right to be forgotten but it certainly has had a positive effect for me and probably many others.
I didn't downvote you ... but your post mentions a misterious state that publishes personal information, you don't say what state, you don't show an example and you don't describe what kind of information is being shared ... I think you just got downvoted for not showing any proof / real example of what you describe and the person that downvoted you has doubts what you say is really a thing
Kjell is a common Swedish name, just click on any link and you will see the personal information about this person. Usually, there also pictures outside their homes with Google Street view.
There are many of these sites, and the information comes from the government. The sites have a right to publish this information and there is nothing you can do in order for it to stop as an individual.
The only real solution if you want to be a bit more anonymous is to write yourself on an adress which you don't live on. But that requires you to have such an adress to begin with and will mess with a lot of systems.
The question then is, how does this apply to search engines/indexers? I don't think it necessarily should, however since 'indexers' are not a recognized role in data processing laws, it takes some case law to figure these things out properly.
By the letter of the law, if something about me is indexed by google, they are processing my personal data and I have the right to ask them to stop doing that and delete it. Realistically though, this can lead to abuse by public people same as the DCMA does for companies.
So, still some work to be done. But I am glad that I have a legal way to force for instance a marketing deparment to stop harassing me with spam mail/calls. In practice, the threat of making a official request is often enough to motivate them ;)