Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case • Hacker News Board

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#201

Post by risotto_groupon » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #32

schoen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I also oppose the "right to be forgotten", I think an obvious reply to your last point is that we also haven't had search engines, the web, newspapers, journalism, or even writing for most of that time.

Counterpoint to your counterpoint: now those who have done heinous things in history can rewrite it. I shudder to think of a terrible leader excising his failed tenure from the annals of history. Google, for better or worse, is a repository of knowledge, the most powerful one we've ever had. We owe it to ourselves to use it responsibly, not hobble it. The problem is a puritanical society that refuses to let someone w…

The nazi hypothermia experiments using holocaust prisoners was simply measuring outcomes. It is the best measure of experimental outcomes we have using live test subjects...

But its highly questionable whether these results should be used, not only ethically, but because data gathered under such circumstances is less reliable... its more reliable than nothing... but should it be used? It exists and its mere existence will lead to policy and problems.

You should really listen to the podcast between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein that was just published on "The Bell Curve" and the data we have on IQ in minority populations. It might change the way you think about the immutability and sacrosanct nature of measuring outcomes.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#202

Post by 21 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #80

sheepz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This a perfectly bad example, because your example makes the reader's intuition pump in a certain way. Consider the alternative story where Mark is a wife beater. Would still come to the same conclusion? Or does it say something about Mark's character or his possible future behavior?

Even if that was his crime it shouldn't prevent him from getting a job. Forcing people to drop out of the labour market massively increases the chance of them committing another crime. Rehabilitation works best if you give people a second chance.

What's good for the society is not necessarily good for the individual.

Him getting a job is good for society, but I don't want to be the one shouldering the risk.

For the individual it's a high risk / low reward situation, so the rational decision is to pass.

Tragedy of the commons.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#203

Post by rdiddly » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

On a tangent, another disturbing usurpation of public functions by private entities is the way you'll often get a quicker & more attentive response from some public agencies by Tweeting than if you go through official channels.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#204

Post by sexoffender » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

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 what 99% society believes. The vast majority of regular people (go on the street and talk to any random person, I guarantee you this is what they'll say) will say that life-time ostracizing is actually part of the sentence. They honestly believe that once you commit a felony, anything bad that happens to you for the rest of your life is fair game. They pretty much believe that the official jail sentence is only the beginning, and that even in jail if you get killed it's pretty fair because you were already one of those criminal-types anyway, so oh well no big loss. I've met so many people in jail who were hardened into a life of crime because of the us-vs-them attitude they've been faced with since young adults and even as teenagers, simply because they made one mistake early on, and now they're labeled and discriminated against even by judges and their own lawyers, let alone citizens. People want there to be rehabilitation and re-entry into society, and there are programs out there, but none of them are actually effective (trust me), and the vast majority of society don't want them to be effective. So everything is status quo.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#205

Post by FooBarWidget » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:29 PM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #74

izacus wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how a lot of EU countries function - which is why there's friction there. The American "You are a criminal for life and will eternally be punished!" attitude is clashing with an EU mindset of being able to start a new life. Permanent records are hugely damaging for persons livelihood in these cases.

I (an EU citizen) want to keep my right to think whatever I want about a criminal - and that includes looking at or keeping records. I feel like this 'right to be forgotten' hurts my safety - I don't want to forget that someone murdered someone or raped someone, these things are unforgettable and definitely unforgivable - and I want to know about them, and I want employers to be able to look them up.

The GDPR does not apply to records kept for personal purposes. If you want to scour the web on a regular basis and write down all the names of criminals in a notebook, then you are still free to do so.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#206

Post by M2Ys4U » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:31 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #135

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…

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.

Indeed. Under the European Convention on Human Rights it's forbidden to impose a blanket ban on all prisoners voting.

Unfortunately, some states (including the United Kindom) wilfully defy the ECtHR on this issue.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#207

Post by dhimes » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:32 PM UTC

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 I posted before, you don't even have to go to the point of conviction. If you are looking at several people, as tenants, employees, whatever- and one comes up as having been accused of some terrible misconduct, but was acquitted, why would you take the chance?

That's the real injustice. And it happens. It's a career-ender.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#208

Post by sgift » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

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.

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

That doesn't mean we have to provide them with the means to do it. No public information, no option to see someone unsafe because of that information.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#209

Post by WorldMaker » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #135

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…

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.

Some US States are working to turn this around and have introduced [edit to finish thought: bills to change it]. It will take a while. Given that many states used felony charges and laws that don't allow felons to vote to control minorities, it may take a long while indeed.

Wikipedia actually has an interesting map on the subject for the US (below the fold/ToC):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#210

Post by blauditore » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

How does Google "remove" entries? Do they just exclude certains pages from results? If so, that's not really a solution since that information is still publicly available.

It would make much more sense to remove all web pages (from newspapers etc.) containing the actual data, and ideally Google would forget about it as well soon. But then again, that would be a lot of work and it's easier to just take down the gateway. But it's ridiculous.