Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories • Hacker News Board

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#61

Post by ams6110 » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #26

hirundo wrote: post #10

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…

> The government doesn't get to decide how long I can hold that grudge.

No, they don't and they shouldn't. But for your own mental health, YOU should forgive it at some point. Holding grudges and never forgiving is not healthy for you. That doesn't mean you forget, but that it stops defining who you are.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#62

Post by piker » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

Hupriene wrote: post #60

piker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not your right to dispense such justice--that in fact belongs to the state in a civilized society. I think this example proves the exact opposite of what you desire. Someone who has spent time in jail and had their record expunged 10 years later has been deemed by the state to have satisfied the burden of their offense, and, yes, their right to have their actions forgiven and forgotten should be at its zenith. […

This isn't about dispensing justice. This is about my personal right to own my experience of my life and those I interact with. Saying that my anger over having been abused by someone is no longer justified just because the courts have seen fit to expunge their records of the crime is deeply intrusive. The criminal court's job is to rectify the individual's relationship with the government. It does nothing to rectify…

Part of the social contract does seem to dictate that the relationship between criminal and victim is governed by law. For example, if you were to respond to the attack by defending yourself in the moment, resulting in the assailant's death, you would potentially be free of any charges due to your right to defend yourself. However, if you were to wait a day (or, say, until after the assailant's release on what you perceived to be too short of a sentence) THEN assault that person, the law likely would be against you. You certainly have the right to continue to FEEL victimized, but query whether or not your right to act on those feelings after justice has been dispensed by the state isn't subject to the social contract with the state.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#63

Post by oh_sigh » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #49

justin66 wrote: post #34

This is not the strangest self-censorship cleveland.com has engaged in. The strangest I'm aware of is publishing otherwise full physical descriptions of wanted criminal suspects while omitting their race.

If you have a full physical description then isn’t race redundant?

I'm guessing they meant traits like hair color, eye color, height, distinguishing tattoos or marks, gender, but not skin color.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#64

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #49

justin66 wrote: post #34

This is not the strangest self-censorship cleveland.com has engaged in. The strangest I'm aware of is publishing otherwise full physical descriptions of wanted criminal suspects while omitting their race.

If you have a full physical description then isn’t race redundant?

[deleted]

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#65

Post by oh_sigh » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:21 PM UTC

komali2 wrote: post #51

comyesa wrote: post #6

Rehabilitation doesn't always work. I doubt a sexual degenerate can be "cured". It's okay if they stay in prison just to be punished and are taken apart from society. It's okay if they can never be around children.

According to your system, logically the smartest thing to do would be simply to execute pedophiles. Since we aren't doing that, presumably we are rehabilitating them. Since we are rehabilitating them, presumably we believe it is possible to rehabilitate them. So what evidence do you have to challenge the criminal rehabilitation system in the USA?

> Since we aren't doing that, presumably we are rehabilitating them.

This doesn't follow. We could just be locking them up for as long as we are allowed to to keep them away from society.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#66

Post by cortesoft » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #45

sk5t wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you proposing that the rule should be "of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened, but only if you do so inefficiently and with little effect"? 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?

Why let people out of prison? What's the point of temporary incarceration without any form of rehabilitation? Presumably, if society is willing to let people return it must gain from their return. That cost benefit trade-off is the exact same one that occurs with your website example.

You can't force 'society' to change its opinion of former criminals via acts of law. The law can only govern a very limited scope of behavior, not peoples opinions or feelings.

I agree our society does not treat ex-convicts well. But changing that requires a cultural shift, not a legal one. We should work on getting people to humanize ex-convicts, not legally trying to make them forget they are ex-convicts.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#67

Post by moorhosj » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

hirundo wrote: post #10

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…

In your view, are libel laws an infringement on my right to speak however I want about somebody else?

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#68

Post by justin66 » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #63

kenjackson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a full physical description then isn’t race redundant?

I'm guessing they meant traits like hair color, eye color, height, distinguishing tattoos or marks, gender, but not skin color.

Precisely. Hence my use of the phrase "otherwise full physical descriptions."

cleveland.com meant well and thought that this omission would help fix a problem they had, a high volume of blatantly racist postings in the largely unmoderated comments section of their paper in reaction to stories about crime. This solution did not work. It's as if racists aren't driven by sober and precise readings of the newspaper text, or something...

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#69

Post by vokep » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

PNWChris wrote: post #52

vokep wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why everyone is just following with that terminology - positive/negative rights. All rights are 'negative rights'. What you're calling positive rights are in fact privileges.

I know the word gets a bad rap, but I feel entitlement is a better word. Driving is a privilege, you have to prove yourself worthy and it can be revoked relatively easily. Voting is (typically) a positive right - an entitlement, it’s guranteed to all citizens with no barrier to entry. Just existing as a citizen is enough (barring circumstances like felony conviction, though personally I’m against removing voting righ…

The word 'right' can be redefined in context sure to make privileges considered as rights, but the typical and most useful meaning of the word is natural rights - that which you have the freedom to do at birth. Of course some rights clash with eachother, which is where some are naturally undone.

It was mentioned elsewhere how the right to freedom (and therefore freedom to kill) conflicts with the right to live. The right to freedom gets restricted in that case because that kind of restriction is the most minimal possible reduction of rights, which still allows everyone to maintain their rights. Life>freedom means a reduced right to freedom, and we don't want to do freedom>life as that results in a complete reduction of rights for an innocent individual.

So, rights aren't just absolute, they're a bit like the voronoi pattern created by intersecting circles. Privileges on the other hand don't even exist without other people usually. With cars, if one exists, you naturally have the right to get in one and drive it...until you're in a society with other cars. Then, it is difficult to exercise your right to drive a car without infringing on others, so much so that the right is entirely reduced and transformed into a privilege: you do not have the right to drive a car unless the state (societal structure) has confirmed you can do so safely.

Re: Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories

#70

Post by matt4077 » Fri, Oct 19, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

sk5t wrote: post #39

matt4077 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you proposing that the rule should be "of course you're still allowed to tell people what happened, but only if you do so inefficiently and with little effect"? 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?

Thank you for giving another example along that continuum. I admit that your example is in that gray area, and I have a hard time giving a definitive opinion on it.

But, to reiterate the point: that does not proof that all such hypotheticals are undecidable.

Imagine someone stealing 1 cent. Should they go to prison? Of course not! Now imagine them stealing 100 million cents, i. e. $1 million. Should they go to prison? Of course!

Just because we're both going to have hard time saying which single cent of those 100 million made the difference between something to ignore and something to punish does in way mean theft should be legalised.

And yes, changes in efficiency do matter. That's why even the US does not recognize a right to privately build, own and operate nuclear weapons.