141–150 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I feel like this 'right to be forgotten' hurts my safety" A few years ago you had no such facility at all - how did you manage?
I was feeling less safe, that has improved. Why go back in time?
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.
I disagree. Someone who was caught stealing at the age of 18 shouldn't be excluded from jobs in their 30s.
You say you disagree, but even the parent suggests as much: "But it does mean that, for the first while at least,"
That's what I take their meaning as. That after you commit a crime, you have to prove yourself again, and that takes time. It's why you suggest 30s, and not 18. For a while after their crime, it would make sense to exclude someone.
On top of that, why so late? Why are you forcing your view that 30s is the earliest someone can trust someone again? Why not 18? Why can't a citizen decide to trust someone earlier than some arbitrary number?
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.
> 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. For his entire life? Even if he was a teenager or young? Doesn't american society even consider something as simple as possibility of changing your behaviour in 60+ years of life? I mean... half of my most successful highschoolmates, leading great compa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Having a bad out come has a greater impact on an individual than say it does to a SME company with 2k employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best part of law and society is that we get to collectively decide if freedom of speech should be absolute. In this case, the judicial branch says no.
Yep. A society with true freedom lets those like this unnamed person and yourself who want to curtail and destroy it speak anyway. Freedom is never a static thing and the fight against censors is constant. It's sad to see this battle lost but I hope for Europe's sake they figure out it was the wrong move after this becomes abused by the rich and powerful.
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…
I think that simply deleting references to information is a crude way to solve this problem. People who want to continue to bias against ex-convicts (like landlords and employers) will use background check services that aren’t regulated here, but the general public will be deprived easy access to information. This seems ripe for abuse, especially for government officials.
Wouldn't it be far worse to delete the original information? It's better to just make it harder for someone's life to be ruined by it, don't you think?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is getting murder or rape convictions removed from the record. This is considerably smaller scale stuff, and the story itself mentions that two men jointly fought to have news of their conviction removed, one who got 6 months in jail, and one who got 4 years, both non violent white collar type offenses, and only the guy who got 6 months actually won. The second guy lost.
>No one is getting murder or rape convictions removed from the record. Story about German murderers suing to get their names removed from a Wikipedia article about the victim. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0