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

191–200 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#191

Post by gremy0 »

volak wrote: post #129
gremy0 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your criminal record is truly relevant to the job, then the employer should do the responsible thing and get a proper background check done. Which are factual and non-biased. Such things shouldn't be left up to google page ranking algorithms and media that tends toward sensationalisation. It's lazy and unprofessional. > Why would they hire mark over a similar employee with a clean record? Is it useful to have peop…

I don't like to break up arguments into tiny pieces and remark on each one - so I'll just wrap this up in 1 thought like a normal person. You are essentially complaining about human nature. Here in reality people want to know if you've violated someone else's trust before trusting you. We are social beings and if you present two people - "This one betrayed a friend, this other one has not" - 99% of people will choose…

You misunderstand, I'm saying there are fair and professional ways to find out if someone is trustworthy. Googling their name, and finding some 5 year old article is not one of these. It presents a incomplete picture that is biased towards attention grabbing material from for-profit media. Use proper background checks and references.

There are also fair ways to deal with criminals, and staff you may not trust. Using google results as the bases of randomly deducting pay, removing employment rights, and other discriminatory acts, is not one of these. It would be far too easy for employers to abuse and doesn't lend itself to the employee having stability. This would just increase the chances of the employee returning to crime.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#192

Post by lovich »

r00fus wrote: post #139
DannyBee wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can and have, in America at least. Companies used to think all black people were untrustworthy and women couldn't handle the responsibility of leadership. We didn't let them continue to discriminate like that

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#193

Post by briandear »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #134
TomMarius wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is google publishing articles about this? Or are they simply a card catalog? Want to be forgotten? Why not address the publisher of information and not merely the index of it?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#194

Post by briandear »

Beltiras wrote: post #52
jasode wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

That's a very US-based list. Many countries around the world do not remove citizen rights to the same degree the US does. Not all countries have a sex offender registry. There is a culture in the States of looking on incarceration as a penalty for crimes. Some countries look on it as a rehabilitation tool and manage lower recidivism rates.

My right to be safe from a rapist is greater than their right to not be on a registry. If they want to avoid being on a registry, then avoid raping people!

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#195

Post by briandear »

adam-a wrote: post #62
jasode wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Note that in many countries, the UK for example, you can vote and get a passport if you have a criminal record. I think it makes sense that this verdict was delivered in Europe where it seems the view on ex-convicts is a bit more generous than in America.

Felons CAN get passports in the US — just not while on parole.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#196

Post by r00fus »

lovich wrote: post #192
r00fus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We can and have, in America at least. Companies used to think all black people were untrustworthy and women couldn't handle the responsibility of leadership. We didn't let them continue to discriminate like that

Race is a protected class [1]. Evidence of criminal history is not.

[1] https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html

"Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members."

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#198

Post by briandear »

mrtksn wrote: post #25
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…

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…

Appeal to CNN. They’re the ones that published the info. It happened. Can’t change that. It’s up to the employer to decide if it is relevant or not. Hiding the fact doesn’t change that it happened. The reaction to what happened is the responsibility of the employer — it certainly isn’t Google’s job to make judgements.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#199

Post by lovich »

volak wrote: post #65
octorian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And once Mark rebuilds trust with company A, all is good. Until, that is, Mark decides to get a new job. Once Mark goes to company B, they find the cookie monster article and make Mark completely rebuild trust from scratch. Then Mark has to move, and goes to company C. The cycle repeats again. Thus Mark is never able to truly get over the cookie monster incident.

Not true - if mark has a resume listing a successful employment post-cookie incident I would call them for a reference. A good reference isn't completely trustworthy but 2 or 3 of them with good companies and I'd be convinced.

You apparently live a privelaged life then. Laws are being passed in US states to prevent criminal history from being asked until an offer has been made precisely because people are not able to get over the result.

The HR pipeline treats any sort of checkered pass as and immediate rejection, whether or not a hiring manager would treat it as such

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#200

Post by lovich »

volak wrote: post #58
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a realistic scenario: Pretty much all employers will just hire someone else.

If I was HR and I had a choice between a Javascript developer for 50k with a clean record and a Javascript developer with a 5 year old conviction for 40k - I'd actually pick the later. But only if I could fire him immediately if he turns out to actually be a cookie monster.

That's how HR acts in practice though. Especially with automated tools, checking off a "have you ever had a prior conviction" box just gets you an automated rejection without a human ever looking at it
Post reply on HN