Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case • Hacker News Board

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#31

Post by flexie » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:33 PM UTC

danielfoster wrote: post #15

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

If this is the case, then the government should pass laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of criminal record. Instead they've passed the puck (rather badly) to Google. And it's not like Google is the only way to find things. Should newspapers be required to delete pages about an individual or destroy print copies? What about other search engines such as Yandex or Baidu? Of course anyone could just search on Go…

Mankind has not had any rights for 99,9 percent of those hundreds of thousands of years you mention and we have only had such accessible records on each other for the past 25 years.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#32

Post by dclowd9901 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #23

danielfoster wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is the case, then the government should pass laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of criminal record. Instead they've passed the puck (rather badly) to Google. And it's not like Google is the only way to find things. Should newspapers be required to delete pages about an individual or destroy print copies? What about other search engines such as Yandex or Baidu? Of course anyone could just search on Go…

While I also oppose the "right to be forgotten", I think an obvious reply to your last point is that we also haven't had search engines, the web, newspapers, journalism, or even writing for most of that time.

Counterpoint to your counterpoint: now those who have done heinous things in history can rewrite it. I shudder to think of a terrible leader excising his failed tenure from the annals of history.

Google, for better or worse, is a repository of knowledge, the most powerful one we've ever had. We owe it to ourselves to use it responsibly, not hobble it. The problem is a puritanical society that refuses to let someone with a scarlet letter move on with their life.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#33

Post by wooly_bully » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:34 PM UTC

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

Agree with you on most points.

A jail, however, is not supposed to serve the purpose of being a mechanism of forgiveness. It is a mechanism of punishment. We as a citizenry give the government the sole right to jail / punish citizens as a way of enforcing the law. While someone may be reformed as an outcome of serving time, it is not the primary goal. Otherwise, we would see a higher focus on lowering recidivism rates.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#34

Post by jayd16 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:35 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #18

jayd16 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that in the US we mostly consider right to free speech more important than the right to be forgotten.

Keep in mind the idea of libel and slander exists in the US. I’d see this court decision as an extension of those ideas (materially true information that can be deindexed by the subject).

I don't think anyone has an issue with libel and slander laws. Those are about known false information.

Censoring an inconvenient truth seems wrong to me. The whole point of freedom of speech is because someone didn't like the speech.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#35

Post by jasode » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

>As a society, we approve of jail being the mechanism to "forgive" a person's crime.

That's not really true. Serving prison time is neither a way to "forgive" nor a way to "pay debt back to society". Those are just common phrases some people use.

If felons were truly forgiven, they would have their right to vote restored. They wouldn't be denied a passport to travel abroad or denied a firearms license. Convicted felons of financial crime will be denied officer positions such as CFO in public companies. A sex felony will be a lifetime of reporting on the sex offenders registries.

Society has never perceived jail time as truly resetting the scarlet letter back to zero. Therefore, the debate is whether "Google results" is in the same bucket as "sex offender list". For many in society, they think it's wrong to remove those results from Google.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#36

Post by emiliobumachar » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

Meanwhile, when governments want to check the background of someone before hiring them into a position of trust involved in national security, they'll send agents to investigate.

Methods include interviewing them hooked up to a polygraph, and asking their neighbors questions face to face.

All for reasons that seem to me less important then the safety of my child while alone with a babysitter.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#37

Post by schoen » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:36 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #32

schoen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I also oppose the "right to be forgotten", I think an obvious reply to your last point is that we also haven't had search engines, the web, newspapers, journalism, or even writing for most of that time.

Counterpoint to your counterpoint: now those who have done heinous things in history can rewrite it. I shudder to think of a terrible leader excising his failed tenure from the annals of history. Google, for better or worse, is a repository of knowledge, the most powerful one we've ever had. We owe it to ourselves to use it responsibly, not hobble it. The problem is a puritanical society that refuses to let someone w…

The way the RTBF is usually formulated includes a notion of proportionality and public interest, so supposedly public officials can't exercise this right in this way, although it then involves a subjective point-in-time judgment about how important information is to history and the public interest.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#38

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:37 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #34

toomuchtodo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind the idea of libel and slander exists in the US. I’d see this court decision as an extension of those ideas (materially true information that can be deindexed by the subject).

I don't think anyone has an issue with libel and slander laws. Those are about known false information. Censoring an inconvenient truth seems wrong to me. The whole point of freedom of speech is because someone didn't like the speech.

The best part of law and society is that we get to collectively decide if freedom of speech should be absolute. In this case, the judicial branch says no.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#39

Post by volak » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:38 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #25

Elessar wrote: post #8

We're rapidly moving to a point where an official (government) criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc. They will instead turn to Google. As such, Google might as well be the official record for many people. And if one put themsleves in the shoes of a victim, or even a criminal who has served their time, Google's pagerank is doing them a disservice. I don't know…

Mark steal cookies, gets caught and serves his sentence in jail. Now Mark is out, looking for a job as a JavaScript developer but when Mark is Googled to check about his involvement in OS projects and personal portfolio before his Github profile the article on CNN from 5 years ago is displayed and apparently Mark is a cookie monster. Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again? Mark made a mistake but Is He really w…

The problem is future employers don't know if mark made a one time mistake or is a serial cookie monster. Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record?

Mark needs to be given the opportunity to demonstrate to an employer hes no longer a cookie monster. He needs to rebuild that trust.

He would do this by taking a lower than average pay, agreeing to periodic cookie-tests, and giving the employer the option to terminate his employment at any time without cause.

If mark really isn't a cookie monster anymore he should be fine with this precautions to minimize the company's risk - after a year or so when there is more trust these disappear.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#40

Post by toomanybeersies » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 3:38 PM UTC

volak wrote: post #28

Entering into a deeper relationship with someone (employer/employee, landlord/tenant, etc) you want to know everything about the other person. This is not because you are some nosy person - its because breaking that relationship means risking lawsuits or damage to your property or a whole eviction process which can take months to years... Its a dangerous thing to "trust" someone when they'll have that level of contro…

So a convicted criminal should be eternally punished by losing any employment security and being paid less than their peers?

That doesn't sound like a society I would like to live in.

The other alternative is that these restrictions would begin with convicted criminals, and spread to the rest of the population. Just because someone hasn't been convicted doesn't mean they aren't a criminal with drugs and weapons in their house after all.