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

131–140 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#131

Post by namlem »

jasode wrote: post #35
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…

>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…

You know not everywhere is the US right?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#132

Post by bduerst »

jasode wrote: post #35
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…

>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…

Incarceration serves three purposes:

    1.  Removal of social offender from society
    2.  Rehabilitation of non-conforming individuals
    3.  Punishment enough to deter future offenders
There's a tangental argument about whether or not incarceration achieves these goals, but the social stigma from being incarcerated isn't the point of any of these goals, and is instead just a cultural byproduct.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#133

Post by comboy »

karmajunkie wrote: post #43
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…

What if the problem is not that society hasn't adjusted to this new space we call the Internet, but that the people in charge of the internet (or rather, the things on it) haven't figured out yet that they still bear some obligation to the rest of the world? To use your example, whether I put up a website or a billboard with defamatory information is irrelevant. We have laws that protect us, which declare that defama…

If anybody, I think the provider, not the search engine should be obligated.

He should be, but in many cases it's just not doable, because governments are local and the Internet is global. I think it should be accepted as a fact. So maybe we need some rethinking. Maybe banning books was never a good idea, even if ideas presented there seemed dangerous, inconvenient and sometimes plainly false.

To me the situation looks like this: A goes to the police station to report that B has stolen something. They are fully aware that there is no chance they can catch B, so they arrest A.

I'm not saying that there is no problem, just that the solution they have chosen is worse than lack of any action.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#134

Post by CaptainZapp »

TomMarius wrote: post #103
izacus wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that most people aren't removing those convictions. With your rigid midset you are punishing thousands of people who have been abused by social media and have done nothing wrong. Destroying their lives permanently.

Could you give me an example, please? I really can't think of a situation when a crime is so irrelevant that nobody cares (and thus the record isn't needed) and yet the record destroys lives (and that proves that people care, BTW) and thus must be deleted.

Low level dope fiend? Visiting a prostitute, or selling sex? I can think of a number of crimes, which are pretty much irrelevant for a character assessment.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#135

Post by dec0dedab0de »

jasode wrote: post #35
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…

>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…

If felons were truly forgiven, they would have their right to vote restored.

I have always thought that was outrageous. I think people should be aloud to vote even while they're in jail. The current system could allow a group to wipe out their political opponents by simply passing a law outlawing a common activity, then selectively enforcing it. I mean that's basically what the war on drugs was about.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#136

Post by mrtksn »

arnarbi wrote: post #122
mrtksn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark steal cookies, gets caught and serves his sentence in jail. Now Mark is out, looking for a job as a JavaScript developer but when Mark is Googled to check about his involvement in OS projects and personal portfolio before his Github profile the article on CNN from 5 years ago is displayed and apparently Mark is a cookie monster. Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again? Mark made a mistake but Is He really w…

> Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again? The argument seems to be that because society does pass that sentence already , we who disagree should "fix" it by making sure society doesn't learn that Mark is a cookie monster. Does that not sound backwards? If the answer to your question is really "no", then we wouldn't need to have this discussion. I suppose I can see the argument that things are unfair to Mark bec…

I agree that it’s backwards but it’s not realistic to expect that from now on people will act rationally and not dismiss without a chance for an explanation a perfectly capable coder, Mark the Javascript developer, simply because his crime ended up in the news.

News doesn’t cover all the criminals even if they are convicted. For the most part, It’s an entertainment and the editorial process can make Mark unemployable because his crime brought a lot of ad impressions but the wife beater never ended up on the news because wasn’t shocking or interesting enough.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#137

Post by r00fus »

darkmighty wrote: post #41
mrtksn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark steal cookies, gets caught and serves his sentence in jail. Now Mark is out, looking for a job as a JavaScript developer but when Mark is Googled to check about his involvement in OS projects and personal portfolio before his Github profile the article on CNN from 5 years ago is displayed and apparently Mark is a cookie monster. Is Mark sentenced to never be employed again? Mark made a mistake but Is He really w…

But you're not talking about forgiveness, you're talking about forgetting. Forgiveness is when we acknowledge mistakes and give them another chance, forgetting is when we erase mistakes. Perhaps instead of artificially limiting our own memory we should be looking to learn to better forgive people in the age of perfect recall.

Basically, you can't hide the info from HR, we need HR to have a less extreme view of who is hirable and who is not.

Or maybe Mark shouldn't be anywhere near cookies anymore - unless he's shown he's been rehabilitated.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#138

Post by volak »

walshemj wrote: post #121
volak wrote: post #28

Entering into a deeper relationship with someone (employer/employee, landlord/tenant, etc) you want to know everything about the other person. This is not because you are some nosy person - its because breaking that relationship means risking lawsuits or damage to your property or a whole eviction process which can take months to years... Its a dangerous thing to "trust" someone when they'll have that level of contro…

So potential employees should be able to do background checks on their employer so mr smith why did your current HR director leave when they where in line to become group hr director. Or why did your colleague director X punch the CFO of Both real examples from companies I have worked at.

This is a weird question - I think you are trying to point out that the employer/employee relationship is not equal.

This is true. The employer always takes a much greater risk to hire you than you take to work there.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#139

Post by r00fus »

DannyBee wrote: post #119
Supernaut wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if we know that he stole cookies before, he must axiomatically be considered less trustworthy around cookies than someone who has no history of treat theft. That doesn't mean that Mark doesn't deserve a second chance at life. But it does mean that, for the first while at least, you are ill-advised to give him the keys to the room where the cookies are kept.

This isn't even true in law. In most states (and the feds), evidence of prior bad acts is not able to be used this way. "(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character."

True in case law vs. advise for a private company to make hiring decisions?

Not at all the same thing. Actions have consequences, and we can't force companies to hire people they see as unsafe.

Post reply on HN