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

221–230 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#221

Post by ocdtrekkie »

nugi wrote: post #123
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My point is that the law is important even for the cases that the parent agrees with. There are clear categorizes for what qualifies for RTBF and they were examined well in this case. The judge rightfully determined that one person has likely changed and shouldn't be burdened by their history, but that another should.

This isn't just a blanket "you can erase things you don't like in the news about you" that some people have made it out to be.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#222

Post by mondoshawan »

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…

> 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.

Based on... what?

Google can't search through Facebook data, much less other social networks. It also can't deduplicate common names like Frank Thompson, or Bob Michaels, or even tell you which one is from where. The data set is hopelessly flawed, and from a landlord or employer point of view, it's frankly the worst possible data set they can use to determine the reputation of an individual.

For notable people that have unique names and professions, maybe. But it still doesn't provide enough visiblity into their personal history to be of any use for the functions you suggest.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#223

Post by ocdtrekkie »

pitaj wrote: post #148
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't it be far worse to delete the original information? It's better to just make it harder for someone's life to be ruined by it, don't you think?

Yes it's not as bad as deleting the information, but it's still much much worse than just doing nothing about the information.

Worse for who? Allowing Google to render someone permanently unemployable based on ancient or false information is definitely not "better".

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#224

Post by barsonme »

mulmen wrote: post #190
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…

Mostly agree with you here but small nit to pick. There's no such thing as a firearms license in the United States. Felons lose their right to own (or even possess?) guns.

Depends on the state. For example, Illinois has Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) cards which are required for possessing firearms and ammunition. One criteria for obtaining a FOID card is not having committed a felony.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#225

Post by steve918 »

lovetrump wrote: post #10

Once a criminal, always a criminal... even if you get it expunged from your record?

Once accused of a crime and it gets printed in the local news paper you're always a criminal on Google. Doesn't matter if you were innocent or not even if the court dismisses your case.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#226

Post by nsp »

fixermark wrote: post #114
bad_user wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you’re referring to the “ban the box” campaigns in Sf/nyc et al, I believe those just prohibit asking on the application (so the candidate has a chance to win you over), not checking for a criminal record entirely.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#227

Post by ocdtrekkie »

lovich wrote: post #200
volak wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was HR and I had a choice between a Javascript developer for 50k with a clean record and a Javascript developer with a 5 year old conviction for 40k - I'd actually pick the later. But only if I could fire him immediately if he turns out to actually be a cookie monster.

That's how HR acts in practice though. Especially with automated tools, checking off a "have you ever had a prior conviction" box just gets you an automated rejection without a human ever looking at it

Where I live they aren't allowed to ask anymore, I think. But they'll likely find out on a quick search.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#228

Post by volak »

gremy0 wrote: post #191
volak wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You misunderstand, I'm saying there are fair and professional ways to find out if someone is trustworthy. Googling their name, and finding some 5 year old article is not one of these. It presents a incomplete picture that is biased towards attention grabbing material from for-profit media. Use proper background checks and references. There are also fair ways to deal with criminals, and staff you may not trust. Using…

You are still arguing against human nature.

Give yourself a scenario - you have two equal candidates:

a) background check clean, no google results b) background check lists sealed conviction, no google results

you'll choose?

now another:

a) background check clean, no google results b) background check lists sealed conviction, google results says he stole some cookies

you'll choose?

Probably (a) both times. Unless in scenario B you can ask about his previous cookie conviction and pay him less and/or able to fire at any time.

By denying all potential information you sow distrust between a mutually consensual relationship. Do you think more or less convicts will be hired when you can't trust background checks to get all the relevant information.

In such a world gossip will replace google. "Did you hear about mark? Oh don't hire him I heard he murdered someone over a batch of cookies!"

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#229

Post by volak »

lovich wrote: post #199
volak wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You apparently live a privelaged life then. Laws are being passed in US states to prevent criminal history from being asked until an offer has been made precisely because people are not able to get over the result. The HR pipeline treats any sort of checkered pass as and immediate rejection, whether or not a hiring manager would treat it as such

True - 100% true. If I had a checkered past with no references I would expect to get denied for every job I applied to.

To combat this prejudice I would fully expect to have to lower my expectations in the form of lower wage or other restriction. If I offer to work for half the normal pay not only will I definitely get hired but I'll get a good reference providing I prove myself capable and trustworthy.

Post reply on HN