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

Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#121

Post by walshemj »

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 potential employees should be able to do background checks on their employer so mr smith why did your current HR director leave when they where in line to become group hr director. Or why did your colleague director X punch the CFO of

Both real examples from companies I have worked at.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#122

Post by arnarbi »

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…

> Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again?

The argument seems to be that because society does pass that sentence already, we who disagree should "fix" it by making sure society doesn't learn that Mark is a cookie monster.

Does that not sound backwards? If the answer to your question is really "no", then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

I suppose I can see the argument that things are unfair to Mark because other people got away with stealing cookies without having it on the public record.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#123

Post by nugi »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #71
jayd16 wrote: post #34

Earlier 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.

Much of Right To Be Forgotten exists because of false information: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/598239092/the-man-who-spent-1... Google would not be removing false results without RTBF or someone being able to afford a very expensive lawyer. RTBF means anyone can actually have a chance at getting false information removed.

But the information in the case being discussed is factually true, and undisputed. Why argue like its not literally the case here?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#124

Post by downandout »

izacus wrote: post #50
jasode wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 fe…

This is not how a lot of EU countries function - which is why there's friction there. The American "You are a criminal for life and will eternally be punished!" attitude is clashing with an EU mindset of being able to start a new life. Permanent records are hugely damaging for persons livelihood in these cases.

Yeah, I think that the EU is right in this regard, and I wish a similar principle existed in the US. But I was surprised that the EU court in this case ruled against one person simply because he served a 4 year sentence. His case was more than a decade old, and it was non-violent and non-sexual.

It seems like an inconsistent application of this principle. Sentences are often based on the amount of money involved. So while embezzlement by a CEO at a small company may well result in smaller losses and shorter prison sentences, the intent and conduct is exactly the same as a similar case at a larger company. If the smaller company CEO has a right to be forgotten, so does the larger one.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#125

Post by sorokod »

TomMarius wrote: post #90
sorokod wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I feel like this 'right to be forgotten' hurts my safety" A few years ago you had no such facility at all - how did you manage?

I was feeling less safe, that has improved. Why go back in time?

Is it possible that your feeling is entirely subjective and not backed by any statistics ?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#126

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

cavanasm wrote: post #88
TomMarius wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I (an EU citizen) want to keep my right to think whatever I want about a criminal - and that includes looking at or keeping records. I feel like this 'right to be forgotten' hurts my safety - I don't want to forget that someone murdered someone or raped someone, these things are unforgettable and definitely unforgivable - and I want to know about them, and I want employers to be able to look them up.

No one is getting murder or rape convictions removed from the record. This is considerably smaller scale stuff, and the story itself mentions that two men jointly fought to have news of their conviction removed, one who got 6 months in jail, and one who got 4 years, both non violent white collar type offenses, and only the guy who got 6 months actually won. The second guy lost.

>No one is getting murder or rape convictions removed from the record.

Story about German murderers suing to get their names removed from a Wikipedia article about the victim. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#127

Post by eeZah7Ux »

stevenwoo wrote: post #96
toomanybeersies wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

How do you handle someone like this guy after he gets out of prison: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/our-tim... If we erase his past from the internet - that kind of enables him to do his scam again immediately. It's a difficult question.

> It's a difficult question.

Not at all. It's up to the legal system and law enforcement to handle this. Not up to citizens, and for good reasons.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#129

Post by volak »

gremy0 wrote: post #110
volak wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If your criminal record is truly relevant to the job, then the employer should do the responsible thing and get a proper background check done. Which are factual and non-biased. Such things shouldn't be left up to google page ranking algorithms and media that tends toward sensationalisation. It's lazy and unprofessional. > Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record? Is it useful to have peop…

I don't like to break up arguments into tiny pieces and remark on each one - so I'll just wrap this up in 1 thought like a normal person.

You are essentially complaining about human nature. Here in reality people want to know if you've violated someone else's trust before trusting you. We are social beings and if you present two people - "This one betrayed a friend, this other one has not" - 99% of people will choose the later.

You will never ever convince a majority of people that someone who has demonstrated untrustability should be trusted the same as someone who has not. Regardless of how long he spent in a steel and concrete cage.

Post reply on HN