Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason we have the freedom of speech in the US is because its the powerful that abuse the ability to censor.
Which powerful entity do you mean? The people who want things unlisted, or Google?
The government.
Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
111–120 of 450 posts
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. The problem is that "mark" will be bogged down with that punishment for the rest of his life at every job he works, so the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Being a former "cookie monster" should not mean a lifetime of lower pay and fewer…
Not true - if mark has a resume listing a successful employment post-cookie incident I would call them for a reference. A good reference isn't completely trustworthy but 2 or 3 of them with good companies and I'd be convinced.
Two equal employees, that would be the eliminating point..
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad you asked :) I want to publish a website with thoughts so far and looking for more brains. What I have in mind is a global, multilayered web of trust. It would be a game changer. Of course, I don't mean it as a startup, it must be decentralized. I don't care who creates it, I just really want to have it. I'm sure you know about the small world effect[1]. Example of layer: coding skill. I assign weights to fr…
> Example of layer: coding skill. I assign weights to friends I know. Now if I want to know if X is a good coder I check what friends of my friends think about it and multiply it by weights I have assigned to those friends (recursive). But it's much more than just having reasonable opinion about coding skill of somebody who you want to hire or cooperate with. So, basically, your multilayered web of trust is just a po…
...And the currently ostracized can stay ostracized in perpetuity.
I'd have to agree with you.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you're not talking about forgiveness, you're talking about forgetting. Forgiveness is when we acknowledge mistakes and give them another chance, forgetting is when we erase mistakes. Perhaps instead of artificially limiting our own memory we should be looking to learn to better forgive people in the age of perfect recall.
You’re an idealist, the world doesn’t work this way. Mark paid his debt to society by time served. And if you want to not hire ex convicts, you simply ask for his criminal record. Is that not a possibility in the US? Anyhow, Google giving you tabloids or other crap simply cannot be a reliable criminal record. And note we’re talking of somebody that’s actually proven guilty in a court of law. What about people being t…
Recently, some states have passed laws barring criminal record requesting for employment purposes.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#115We'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…
It was far easier in the past to be forgotten, though. The absolute obsession with collecting data needs to be reevaluated. Free and open society won't survive.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Yep. A society with true freedom lets those like this unnamed person and yourself who want to curtail and destroy it speak anyway. Freedom is never a static thing and the fight against censors is constant.
It's sad to see this battle lost but I hope for Europe's sake they figure out it was the wrong move after this becomes abused by the rich and powerful.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#117We'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…
"Maye the balance could be to not display Marks convictions until specifically asked for?"
This is basically the status quo before. But ... the employer is going to background check mark and find them anyway, because they are public record and available in easily searchable databases (see Lexis, etc)
In practice, this stuff simply doesn't affect any employment case (at least in the US). None of the right to be forgotten stuff allows you to avoid any of the above except the "easy google search" (which again, practically doesn't matter).
So the argument you make should be limited to that. (and i think it is entirely reasonable to question whether your neighbors, who won't background check you, but will search google, should find it)
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#118Meanwhile, 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.
Because a dodgy spy can cause more damage kim philby lead to the deaths of a large number of people.
And its more likely that a family member is a danger to you child - than say a babysitter who got busted at 15 for smoking pot behind the bleachers with her bf.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Because if we know that he stole cookies before, he must axiomatically be considered less trustworthy around cookies than someone who has no history of treat theft. That doesn't mean that Mark doesn't deserve a second chance at life. But it does mean that, for the first while at least, you are ill-advised to give him the keys to the room where the cookies are kept.
This isn't even true in law.
In most states (and the feds), evidence of prior bad acts is not able to be used this way.
"(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#120We'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…
> criminal record is not important to folks you want to interact with -- landlords, employers etc
Do not assume landlords and employers have access to people's criminal record - it's not the case in most countries!