31–40 of 115 posts
Imagine the chaos, not only on web sites, but across all of society.
Would schoolbooks have to be re-written? What would teachers say when children asked who the xth president of the republic was?
The ‘right to be forgotten’ is backwards. Much better would be a 'right to remember'. The right to be forgotten is a positive right, in that it requires other people to take action (e.g. delist a story from Google) to fulfill it. A right to remember would be a negative right. Like a freedom of the press doesn't require the government to subsidize a printing press or equivalent, a right to remember would just mean tha…
Yes, this is always my argument against this sort of thing. Enforcing one person's right to be forgotten is infringing on someone else's right to remember. Say, for example, I get beat up by someone. They are convicted and go to jail, but then in 10 years time they get their record expunged. Am I no longer allowed to tell people about what happened? I should be allowed to tell my story. I should be allowed to tell pe…
To understand why some people argue for such a right, you need to appreciate that a report of your crime being the #1 Google hit for a search of your name is fundamentally different than some old acquaintances knowing something. You cannot escape the former, you can not make amends with an archive as you can with people, etc.
I know many people are reluctant to see a difference between situations when they exist on a continuum. And yes, there are scenarios every step of the way from "top Google hit" to "one guy knows and could tell if asked". What if you actively went around 20 years later telling the story? What if you kept commenting on every social media post of theirs?
But just because there's a gray area somewhere on this spectrum does not imply that we cannot recognise the extremes as distinct situations that require different rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The evidence suggests otherwise. Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders. They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years. The figures are clearly out of alignment wi…
> They found a [recidivism] rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years. Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years That paragraph supports its own opposite conclusion, and actually makes me reconsider my opposition to sex offender registries. You are telling me that the subset of the population that has been convicted of a sex crime once has a 1 in 7 chance of doing it aga…
I wonder what would happen if a world leader, like the president of France, invoked his EU-given right to be forgotten. Imagine the chaos, not only on web sites, but across all of society. Would schoolbooks have to be re-written? What would teachers say when children asked who the xth president of the republic was?
this is important in the united states, as the criminal justice system is often used as a blacklist. Once convicted of a DUI or drug possession, this criminal record can be used to bar employment, rescind voting rights, and legally practice housing discrimination. American criminal justice is often a precursor for lasting biblical retribution. For example, sex offenders are often branded with scarlet letter for life…
Even more so than the sex offender registry, I think US news reporting is more problematic. I wish the US were more like Germany (I think?) in the regard that they don't identify people by name until conviction. By that time, there's less interest in sensationalizing a story.
That said the system works pretty well because people generally don't bother looking up the full names.
The ‘right to be forgotten’ is backwards. Much better would be a 'right to remember'. The right to be forgotten is a positive right, in that it requires other people to take action (e.g. delist a story from Google) to fulfill it. A right to remember would be a negative right. Like a freedom of the press doesn't require the government to subsidize a printing press or equivalent, a right to remember would just mean tha…
Yes, this is always my argument against this sort of thing. Enforcing one person's right to be forgotten is infringing on someone else's right to remember. Say, for example, I get beat up by someone. They are convicted and go to jail, but then in 10 years time they get their record expunged. Am I no longer allowed to tell people about what happened? I should be allowed to tell my story. I should be allowed to tell pe…
[Edit: Downvotes? How about a response then? What's the purpose of jail if (1) we know it's not rehabilitation and (2) the convicted's debt to society is not satisfied upon serving the sentence?]
this is important in the united states, as the criminal justice system is often used as a blacklist. Once convicted of a DUI or drug possession, this criminal record can be used to bar employment, rescind voting rights, and legally practice housing discrimination. American criminal justice is often a precursor for lasting biblical retribution. For example, sex offenders are often branded with scarlet letter for life…
And Canada will not let you enter their country if you have a DUI in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is always my argument against this sort of thing. Enforcing one person's right to be forgotten is infringing on someone else's right to remember. Say, for example, I get beat up by someone. They are convicted and go to jail, but then in 10 years time they get their record expunged. Am I no longer allowed to tell people about what happened? I should be allowed to tell my story. I should be allowed to tell pe…
Of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened... To understand why some people argue for such a right, you need to appreciate that a report of your crime being the #1 Google hit for a search of your name is fundamentally different than some old acquaintances knowing something. You cannot escape the former, you can not make amends with an archive as you can with people, etc. I know many people are reluct…
What if the top hit is a personal website describing the crime and its effects, rather than a town newspaper--should Google knock that personal website off the front page?
> the site would remove names from older stories if their records were expunged. That seems reasonable. If the record is "expunged", you can legally say that you have not been convicted of that crime. So it can't legally be used against you (like on a job application)... so references to that crime should be removed from public view.
Yes, but a news article saying you were arrested for something still happened, and is still factual.