Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

espresso.repubblica.it

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#61

Post by blacksmith_tb »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #23

Counter View. I don't expect this to sit well with HN. Is everything to be a sentence for life? I, and the law in many places, don't think that's fair. Whilst I don't think 2.5 yrs is the right balance, I do think much reporting should expire to an archive. If a restaurant did something wrong 10 years ago, but clean since (that's in the context of the UK with regular, visible, standards checks), who cares about the o…

These are non-issues, broadly. The hypothetical restaurant that had bad press / reviews / etc. long ago will be critically evaluated by the public, who are not incapable of coming to the conclusion you suggest, that 10 years of no (or good) news outweighs the old blot on their record. If employers of the future use data mining to expose every trivial misstep of candidates for hire and then turn away all those who aren't perfect, they won't have any employees. In fact, it reminds more than a little of the difference between having a credit history, however bad, vs. having no credit history at all - typically lenders are much more wary of no history, rather than a bad one (within reason).

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#62

Post by Grishnakh »

a_humean wrote: post #11

This appears to be an overzealous extension of the right to be forgotten. The right to be forgotten is a debate worth having as there are individuals that may have historical public records that may be false or no longer in the public interest to be so widely available. E.g: Man falsely but not maliciously accused of rape or murder in press reports and later being exonerated in court without accompanying press report…

>E.g: Man falsely but not maliciously accused of rape or murder in press reports and later being exonerated in court without accompanying press report detailing the exoneration, and now finds it very difficult to get a job or start new relationships. Or a business man who filled for bankruptcy 30 years ago who finds search engines return news reports of his bankruptcy as the first and only return on himself and thus makes finding business partners or credit near impossible.

I'm not trying to blame the victims here, but if you're in these unenviable situations, wouldn't it be possible to avoid these problems by changing your name? If Google searches for "John Doe" (obviously, a more unique name than that) return press reports about you being tried for rape, changing your name to "Jim Smith" is going to eliminate that problem handily. A potential dating partner would have to do a significant background search on you to find out you changed your name, and then look up that one.

I mean, it sucks that you'd have to go to the trouble of dealing with the courts to change your name, and also have to lose your name which you might have an emotional attachment to for understandable reasons, but for infrequent cases like this, this seems like a much easier thing to do than to try to get data warehouses around the world to stop reporting past stuff about you in response to queries.

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#63

Post by toomuchtodo »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #61
anexprogrammer wrote: post #23

Counter View. I don't expect this to sit well with HN. Is everything to be a sentence for life? I, and the law in many places, don't think that's fair. Whilst I don't think 2.5 yrs is the right balance, I do think much reporting should expire to an archive. If a restaurant did something wrong 10 years ago, but clean since (that's in the context of the UK with regular, visible, standards checks), who cares about the o…

These are non-issues, broadly. The hypothetical restaurant that had bad press / reviews / etc. long ago will be critically evaluated by the public, who are not incapable of coming to the conclusion you suggest, that 10 years of no (or good) news outweighs the old blot on their record. If employers of the future use data mining to expose every trivial misstep of candidates for hire and then turn away all those who are…

Spoken like someone who hasn't been turned away from a job due to something trivial showing up on a background check from over 10 years ago (this has happened to me, ordinance violation from a college town where my tenants destroyed the front yard when I was just starting to learn what being a landlord meant in my early 20s), as well as being denied credit due to a black mark 6 years ago (also has happened, even though the financial situation that caused the black mark has been resolved long ago; have to wait the full 7.5 years, and even then, you must apply to have the old negative credit line record removed).

Its easy to say "these are non-issues" when they're not happening to you.

Now I'm that guy who has scrubbed his Twitter feed, locked down his Facebook privacy settings, does everything possible not to leak personal information online, removes every item I can from my credit reports (good, bad, addresses, employers, whatever; as long as its old enough to be removed, I have it removed), and has paid to have citations as trivial as traffic tickets expunged from my record from years back.

I will do everything I can to leave no trace, as you never know what will be used against you in the future.

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#64

Post by toomuchtodo »

RIMR wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife has the issue that she was the victim of a crime, and the news reported her in detail as the perp was underage and they couldn't publish his name. The result, my wife has had work colleagues ask about it, and one implied that she may have done something wrong to invite trouble. The victims and innocent in an incident can be affected by reportage too. We're European, and she tried to exercise the Right to be F…

So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information, and not looking at shitty employers who think that this level of research on their employees or potential hires is appropriate? I think "The right to be forgotten" is a ridiculous "right". You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about. Perhaps make laws that prohibit employers from using news stories older than 5 y…

> You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about.

Libel and slander would like to have a word with your opinion.

> Scrubbing the internet of factual information to protect people's feelings is a very concerning form of censorship.

No, its not. People have rights.

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#65

Post by ythl »

RIMR wrote: post #58
buro9 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife has the issue that she was the victim of a crime, and the news reported her in detail as the perp was underage and they couldn't publish his name. The result, my wife has had work colleagues ask about it, and one implied that she may have done something wrong to invite trouble. The victims and innocent in an incident can be affected by reportage too. We're European, and she tried to exercise the Right to be F…

So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information, and not looking at shitty employers who think that this level of research on their employees or potential hires is appropriate? I think "The right to be forgotten" is a ridiculous "right". You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about. Perhaps make laws that prohibit employers from using news stories older than 5 y…

> So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information

Europe likes to try and bully Google; it makes them feel better about their distinct lack of web tech

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#66

Post by ythl »

hx87 wrote: post #22
andybak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending the ruling but speed of access does make a qualitative difference with genuine implications.

So...make them available only at certain hours and only over a 56k modem?

Make it only available to the government. Your average citizen shouldn't have access to so much information; only the government should.

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#67

Post by FlowersByIrene »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #63
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are non-issues, broadly. The hypothetical restaurant that had bad press / reviews / etc. long ago will be critically evaluated by the public, who are not incapable of coming to the conclusion you suggest, that 10 years of no (or good) news outweighs the old blot on their record. If employers of the future use data mining to expose every trivial misstep of candidates for hire and then turn away all those who are…

Spoken like someone who hasn't been turned away from a job due to something trivial showing up on a background check from over 10 years ago (this has happened to me, ordinance violation from a college town where my tenants destroyed the front yard when I was just starting to learn what being a landlord meant in my early 20s), as well as being denied credit due to a black mark 6 years ago (also has happened, even thou…

You use a similar handle on another very popular discussion website, and you have recently spoken of doing something across state lines which is likely illegal.

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#68

Post by tehwalrus »

nickff wrote: post #37
tehwalrus wrote: post #6

"Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line. This involves revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs—mostly to remove "unpersons," people who have fallen foul of the party. Because of his proximity to the mechanics of rewriting history, Winston Smith nurses doub…

Thanks for posting this. Many are also persistently pushing to change what is 'acceptable' vocabulary to change how people think, as Orwell described in the Newspeak appendix.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#The_Newsp...

My only beef is when the law comes down hard on language, as per the Italian courts (or minitrue). People arguing about acceptable language (or, essentially, what is ethical and what isn't) is not a bad thing.

Re: Italian Supreme Court: News "expires", online archives would need to be deleted

#70

Post by sqeaky »

sqeaky wrote: post #55
ivan_gammel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's much more difficult problem, because reputation damage happens not only as a result of court decision. A politician could say very dumb and offensive things when he was young - should it really affect his political career?

Hasn't hurt Trump and he says "very dumb and offensive things" now. People generally don't care what you did in the ancient past. The only time it matters is when it is a big deal. Like that Republican in the primaries who fabricated an incident involving a knife. Without a public record we wouldn't know. We need an uncensored public record so we can verify what people say and guide our future decisions.

I think people are downvoting me because they don't like the idea that Trump and Hillary are neck and neck in the polls.

I am fairly certain his saying "dumb and offensive things" is a huge part of his success. Where I am Trump has about 60% of the voters. When I talk to people they say they like the idea of the wall or that they do want muslims banned. These are each dumb and offensive and as far as I can tell the reason people in my area support Trump.

Whether or not you support Trump, if you understand what he is saying, they are objectively (or at least not much room for subjectivity) dumb and offensive.

Post reply on HN