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

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#161

Post by downandout » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

moomin wrote: post #151

downandout wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you read the article it was a bit more nuanced than that. The one who had the right to be forgotten denied had a track record of misleading people about his conviction. The court (rightly, in my view) took this behaviour as evidence that his conviction remained relevant in a way that it was not for the other person (described as showing remorse). They didn’t just measure the length of the sentence. IMHO, this is a…

I did read the article, but it simply said that the person had “continued to mislead the public”. At the very least I’d need to know more to call this fair, as we have no idea what that very broad statement entails. Is there proof that he continued to mislead the public? Has he been convicted of other crimes since then? What standard of proof was used to make this determination? If, for example, he has simply explained his side of the situation that led to his conviction publicly, and some people found that “misleading,” I would say this isn’t fair. If he has been convicted of additional crimes, then I would call it fair. So it depends on the specific circumstances.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#162

Post by alistairSH » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #75

darkmighty wrote: post #41

Earlier 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…

And if you want to not hire ex convicts, you simply ask for his criminal record. Is that not a possibility in the US?

Yes, it's possible to get criminal records in the US. Almost all major employers do so.

But is it right? I have mixed feelings. If the crime might reasonably impact the job, sure. White collar criminal probably shouldn't ever be CFO or CPA or whatever. But, if somebody got in a bar fight in college, is that grounds to never hire them? By policy, many companies will not hire somebody with ANY criminal record, no matter how serious or how old.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#163

Post by enitihas » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

I am just curious, what about the edge cases? What if a person commits acts of domestic violence with their romantic partners, and then gets Google to remove that record. Don't their future partners deserve to know? What if someone commits legal but shady acts in dealing with people. Why should they have a right to remove it from the public record?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#164

Post by hartator » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #130

Maybe this opens up a opportunity for a new search engine that excludes people from the EU and allows a much less censored view of things.

I think that's already the case, isn't US results not affected by this?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#165

Post by kuschku » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #109

lumisota wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discriminating on the basis of spent convictions is illegal in the UK (where this ruling took place).

Oh cool, I didn't know that. Thanks for commenting. Is there something I'm missing about Right to be Forgotten then? Why is this needed if it's already illegal to discriminate against someone over minor crimes or scandals? Does the law not have much teeth or something?

You don’t always know why companies discriminate against a potential employee. They don’t just tell you why they refused to hire someone.

So, employers don’t get access to criminal records, and generally, newspapers can’t republish information about people in a way that would harm their life today. Even criminals whose cases were public when they went into jail have a right to a normal life after they’ve finished their sentence – sometimes this is included with a change of name, but ideally, it’d be better if we, as society, would just forgive, or forget.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#166

Post by walshemj » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

volak wrote: post #156

walshemj wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? the risk is far worse for the employee than the employer. Having a bad out come has a greater impact on an individual than say it does to a SME company with 2k employees.

Because in many places employees can't be terminated without cause. You as a business want employees to be worth than what you pay them. If you hire someone for 50k who sits around and needs direction from a manager to do anything you are taking a huge loss. Also as an employee if you are harassing female employees (but never too much because you know how to toe the line) you create an environment no one wants to wor…

Sorry that's to be blunt crap I work in the - to your eyes socialist Europe. and I know a fair bit about how employment law works in the UK

And its very easy to fire people for cause - what its harder to do is fire some one for spurious reasons i.e. fired so you can give your nephew the job.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#167

Post by F_r_k » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #143

izacus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. For his entire life? Even if he was a teenager or young? Doesn't american society even consider something as simple as possibility of changing your behaviour in 60+ years of life? I mean... half of my most successful highschoolmates, leading great compa…

Smoking pot is not the same as theft. One is harmless to society, the other is not.

Yet, some people have got a different point of view and think that smoking pot is not harmless to society.

Same thing and op's point of view and yours

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#168

Post by mcfedr » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

Seems crazy that this is brought to Google, the results are there because it's on the internet, go to the source and get them to remove it.

Which coinsidently would probably be a much harder case to bring because these are generally reputable news sources and not a big US company everyone seems to have a bit of a problem with already.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#169

Post by moomin » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #161

moomin wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article it was a bit more nuanced than that. The one who had the right to be forgotten denied had a track record of misleading people about his conviction. The court (rightly, in my view) took this behaviour as evidence that his conviction remained relevant in a way that it was not for the other person (described as showing remorse). They didn’t just measure the length of the sentence. IMHO, this is a…

I did read the article, but it simply said that the person had “continued to mislead the public”. At the very least I’d need to know more to call this fair, as we have no idea what that very broad statement entails. Is there proof that he continued to mislead the public? Has he been convicted of other crimes since then? What standard of proof was used to make this determination? If, for example, he has simply explain…

Since it’s a report of a U.K. high court case, I think it’s safe to say there was documented proof. I mean, you can read the court transcripts if you like, but UK judges aren’t in the habit of letting unsubstantiated claims into the courtroom.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#170

Post by IAmEveryone » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:08 PM UTC

enitihas wrote: post #163

I am just curious, what about the edge cases? What if a person commits acts of domestic violence with their romantic partners, and then gets Google to remove that record. Don't their future partners deserve to know? What if someone commits legal but shady acts in dealing with people. Why should they have a right to remove it from the public record?

IT has never been all-or-nothing. Google currently makes such decisions. They recently released stats showing they deny about half of all requests.

If one side is unhappy with Google's decision, they can sue. And the court system is almost completely devoted to the sort of question you're asking.