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

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#241

Post by lovich » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

comboy wrote: post #105

yiyus wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think this is one of these "doesn't work" that come to analytical mind when presented in a short form and the reason this idea is not more popular. It would be, if the ranking would be global and not through the lens of your network. You can have the most popular coder A, he does lot's of video tutorials and blogs. But you have your finely cured network regarding this technology because you are pro yourself. You kn…

That still doesn't get rid of the popularity contest aspect. You are making an assumption that humans can make perfectly rational decisions most of the time, much less all of the time. The unfortunate reality is that we all influenced by non rational factors as a result of how our brains evolved

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#242

Post by guelo » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:24 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…

Is it up to Google's lawyers to do extensive investigations to find out that this guy had "a track record of misleading people"? What if Google decides they don't want to pay for that? Then all that nuance will be gone.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#243

Post by d1zzy » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:24 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…

You're right and it makes sense but how is someone like Google supposed to handle these requests case by case? Or are they supposed to hire an army of lawyers and send thousands of requests to be decided by the courts?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#244

Post by qznc » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

M2Ys4U wrote: post #218

comboy wrote: post #19

It's absolutely insane what they are doing (EU). Should libraries remove newspapers with my name if I don't like what's written there about me? It's pure censorship. It all stems from the fact that society hasn't yet adjusted to the reality that not everything on the Internet is true. People share between themselves lots of false beliefs. The Internet is just another medium. The problem is that if I put up a billboar…

>It's absolutely insane what they are doing (EU). Should libraries remove newspapers with my name if I don't like what's written there about me? That would be insane if that was how the law works. It's not how the law works.

Then german law is nearly insane.

In Germany newspaper are not allowed to name people, especially if they are accused but not convicted. The exception is people "of public interest", which is obviously not a clear line. So, quite literally libraries would have to remove newspapers with your name if you don't like what's written there about you ... unless it is of public interest. I consider this law ok.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#245

Post by mrtksn » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:29 PM UTC

21 wrote: post #202

dx034 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that was his crime it shouldn't prevent him from getting a job. Forcing people to drop out of the labour market massively increases the chance of them committing another crime. Rehabilitation works best if you give people a second chance.

What's good for the society is not necessarily good for the individual. Him getting a job is good for society, but I don't want to be the one shouldering the risk. For the individual it's a high risk / low reward situation, so the rational decision is to pass. Tragedy of the commons.

What risk? It's just easy to pass and assume that those who don't have News articles about are lower risk.

Not all crimes are reported on the News as it's for-profit entertainment business that needs to pick the most shocking/entertaining incidents and portray those in a way that more people share it.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#246

Post by M2Ys4U » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

rleigh wrote: post #237

M2Ys4U wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Under the European Convention on Human Rights it's forbidden to impose a blanket ban on all prisoners voting. Unfortunately, some states (including the United Kindom) wilfully defy the ECtHR on this issue.

There's a big difference between allowing people in prison to vote, and in never allowing them to vote again after they are released. People in prison by intention don't have the same civil rights as normal citizens, and so withholding the right to vote doesn't seem unreasonable. Withholding it in perpetuity seems outrageous.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspend the right to vote to some (or indeed to most) prisoners.

But I also don't think it's unreasonable to allow some prisoners to vote, especially where they are imprisoned for short sentences and where it is in the interests of rehabilitating them to do so.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#247

Post by lovich » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

spullara wrote: post #183

It is odd that this is google's responsibility. Why isn't this directed at the original source?

Because having this information wasn't the problem. The problem now is that anyone anywhere can have access to all the data about you at any time. The scale of the ability has changed the behavior. The same issue comes up with cops tracking cars.

It was never an issue for society for a cop to tail someone driving on public roads because they could only follow a few people given the resources necessary to tail someone. Now they can buy a few cameras that track license plates and have real time tracking of _everyone_ on the road with the ability to store the data forever until they decide it's useful, which is has changed the actual results of cops being allowed to track people.

This right to be forgotten used to exist simply because you had to put effort into finding out data about people. People could move to another town and restart their life. The courts in this case appear to be trying to reset tat status quo

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#248

Post by lovich » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

volak wrote: post #51

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…

Think you missed the part where I said these restrictions were temporary until trust is rebuilt. I have more of a reason to trust a stranger with a clean record than I do to trust a convicted criminal. Once the later demonstrates hes trustworthy these restrictions disappear.

In both politics and tech there has been nothing more permanent than a temporary measure. Jail was already supposed to be a temporary punishment for a crime that has been turning into a permanent punishment. How would your system not devolve into the same thing?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#249

Post by bsder » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:38 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #194

Beltiras wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very US-based list. Many countries around the world do not remove citizen rights to the same degree the US does. Not all countries have a sex offender registry. There is a culture in the States of looking on incarceration as a penalty for crimes. Some countries look on it as a rehabilitation tool and manage lower recidivism rates.

My right to be safe from a rapist is greater than their right to not be on a registry. If they want to avoid being on a registry, then avoid raping people!

> My right to be safe from a rapist is greater than their right to not be on a registry. If they want to avoid being on a registry, then avoid raping people!

This is a problem that should be fixed with laws, not with Google.

In many places, an 18 year old who sleeps with a 17 year old is a "rapist". Someone who breaks into a house and forces them at knifepoint to have sex is also a "rapist". One of these is a much greater danger to society and that should be reflected in our laws. And, to a certain extent, it is. Many places have judicial procedures where the first kind of "rapist" can have that offense reduced to a lesser class of crime after some level of incarceration and probation. Google should not be allowed to unilaterally undo that.

We need to quit treating people who go to prison as if they have a scarlet letter even after they have served their time. If they are that dangerous, they shouldn't be let out. The problem is that, in the US, we want to incarcerate people but not pay money for doing so.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#250

Post by quanticle » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

It's not clear to me why this problem couldn't be solved more elegantly by creating anti-discrimination laws around criminal records.

Because anti-discrimination laws around criminal records will work about as well as anti-discrimination laws regarding all the other protected classes (race, gender, age, etc.). Companies will very quickly figure out how to work around them, and will find ways to reject candidates for being a member of said protected class without making it apparent that this is the true cause for rejection.

If a company gets 90% through the hiring process, runs a background check, and then immediately says "no", then you sue them.

If this law passes, that will happen about as often as a company telling you to your face, "We're not hiring you because you're {black| a woman| over 40, etc}." What will probably happen is that companies will move the background check step ahead of the interview step. Then, after they've done the background check and had the interview, they can tell you, "Well, sorry, we've decided to go with a different applicant," just as they do today.