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

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#421

Post by jimmywanger » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

jobigoud wrote: post #364

jimmywanger wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn all have roughly the same interview process. One hour phone screen, 5 hour on-site interviews, then a decision. I have never encountered a situation with 7 interviews. Bear in mind that many wash out during the phone screen, so no, a fully loaded interview schedule is not that sort of commitment at all.

I think he means 7H of interviews in total in order to find the right candidate for the position.

In that case, it's not an amortized cost of the time it takes to interview each person that comes in the door.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#422

Post by Guidii » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 4:45 PM UTC

greyman wrote: post #392

smsm42 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. It's not a technological problem. It may be a societal problem (e.g. we are supposed to forgive and forget, but instead we obsess over a mistake somebody made 30 years ago) but I don't see how it is a t…

>> Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. I feel it is basically a cultural issue. Many Europeans (including me) believe that the "right to be forgotten" is real, i.e. we want that right. Company with american cultural roots feels differentl…

Thanks - it's helpful to hear your perspective on this.

What I don't understand though, is how this is supposed to help. If you want a fact to disappear, shouldn't you work that out with the publisher? Until you do that, it isn't really forgotten... just kind of badly remembered. I mean, people can still access that story as long as it's on the internet.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#423

Post by walshemj » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 4:49 PM UTC

Interesting that the one that won NT2 (conspiracy to intercept communications) looks like one of those dodgy PI's that the tabloids / News international uses.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#424

Post by walshemj » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

quanticle wrote: post #353

equalunique wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What will probably happen is that companies will move the background check step ahead of the interview step. The cost of doing interviews to screen candidates is much lower than background checks. Why would a company want to do that step first?

>The cost of doing interviews to screen candidates is much lower than background checks. I highly doubt that. An engineer-hour costs roughly $100. A background check probably costs roughly as much as a phone screen, and an order of a magnitude less than an on-site. It'd be pretty easy to do the background check step in between the phone screen and the on-site, and it wouldn't appreciably raise costs to the company.

A low level BG check costs that but that's probably just checking they are on the electoral register an don't have any outstanding judgements against them.

Also spending money externally appears to the company to cost much more than using internal resources

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#425

Post by walshemj » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

tripzilch wrote: post #311

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…

> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to the US. We don't do the "jury of peers" thing (and I'm still not sure if this if really true or just stories/TV but, aren't juries specifically selected to have no background in the case matter, or legal matter?). Further, it's not unheard of that the judges a…

Well some of us "europeans" and I would bet 99.9% of Americans have issues with the Napoleonic political inquisitorial based systems

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#426

Post by walshemj » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

Trundle wrote: post #404

saimis wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m an European and I’m completeley against this kind of censoring. Europe is not homogenous, don’t generalize. And this right to be forgotten is not a “human right” it’s a second chance, a gift, that should be given cautiously. Next time some polititian will want something to be forgotten.

If they declare it a right then it's a right. That's all that word means.

Depends a lot of European constitutions seem to be based on you plebs have the rights "we as in the king or other ellites" give you not inalienable rights.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#427

Post by walshemj » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #165

danShumway wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

Tell that to a celeb that the press decides to monster - Cliff Richards case vs the BBC is a current example.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#428

Post by unilynx » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #418

chrononaut wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While valid, only a fraction of the population would know to do this, and then a smaller fraction would believe it's worthwhile. It's an added inconvenience that has to outweigh the disadvantages of not doing it.

You're missing an even bigger issue. How would know that your search results are missing something in the first place? You're not going to use a VPN to search "from another country" unless you already know or suspect something but can't find any information on it and suspect the reason is because you are searching from the EU rather than the USA!

Google says so at the bottom of the page if results have been removed for your search

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#429

Post by alkonaut » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

tomkarlo wrote: post #324

danShumway wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And in addition to that, the "if the law is in fact on your side"-part is also easier to determine beforehand I do think that American courts have a problem with this, and I do wish Americans cared more about it. It's fairly standard to hear people over here talk about whether or not something is legal and say "Oh, but I'm not a lawyer, make sure you consult with one before making any decisions." That always irrita…

California's constitution alone is over 100 pages, never mind thousands of pages of other legal code as well as precedents. It's not that the laws are so complex, it's that they have to cover so much it's never going to be feasible for someone not doing it professionally to be an expert on it. Folks say "you should consult with a lawyer" when the topic is something that's too obscure or marginal to be obvious to a no…

This is why common law annoys me. Possible recedent from any tiny case any time? That’s sure to help only one thing: an industry of legal workers since no one can actually know the law without doing endless research.

I absolutely love how our laws are relatively small, how precedent is from the Supreme Court only, and how most people don’t have any contact with lawyers in their entire life.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#430

Post by oculusthrift » Sat, Apr 14, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

eclat wrote: post #396

"The right to be forgotten is meant to apply to information that is no longer relevant but disproportionately impacts a person," said Jim Killock, executive director. "The Court will have to balance the public's right to access the historical record, the precise impacts on the person, and the public interest." I feel like every single comment on here has missed the point. This isn't about removing relevant informatio…

Uh, i think society deserves to know that man abused an animal and is potentially dangerous/mentally unstable. If you’re a young woman about to go on a date with someone i’m sure you’d want to know about that incident