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

271–280 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#271

Post by ythn »

davesque wrote: post #269

I'm a bit surprised at all the negative reactions I'm seeing here in response to this. This really seems like a win for individual rights which the tech community is normally all about. As I see it, the heart of the matter is that the average person is really bad at placing any random fact they learn about someone (or something) in its proper context. So that means people should have some legal leverage when it comes…

To me it seems like Yet Another Barrier To Entry For Tech Startups (TM). I remember the good old days (re: 10 years ago) when you could make all sorts of cool things without being bogged down by regulations. I guess that era is over (at least for certain categories of tech like search engines).

Also, your right to be forgotten seems to be infringing on my right to remember.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#272

Post by DannyBee »

r00fus wrote: post #196
lovich wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mem…

As the poster above you said, "We can and have,"

Where do you think this protected class came from?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#273

Post by danso »

BadassFractal wrote: post #185

I once got contacted by a female account manager from a well known job boards company in the Valley. I googled for her to find her linkedin so we could link up, since we were going to be doing business together, likely for a while. What shocked me was that the first result that Google returned was a smear page against her from her ex boyfriend, something like janedoesisaslut.com or janedoecheats.com with a long essay…

I wonder how this would be treated under the EU law? It doesn't involve a legal conviction or something that has a codified statute of limitations. It may contain facts, but it also contains opinions, opinions which the site creator may still hold.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#274

Post by icebraining »

DannyBee wrote: post #117
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…

"Maye the balance could be to not display Marks convictions until specifically asked for?" This is basically the status quo before. But ... the employer is going to background check mark and find them anyway, because they are public record and available in easily searchable databases (see Lexis, etc) In practice, this stuff simply doesn't affect any employment case (at least in the US). None of the right to be forgot…

the employer is going to background check mark

Are they? I've been involved in hiring people, and I've never seen that. Is it common in the EU?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#275

Post by DannyBee »

alistairSH wrote: post #157
DannyBee wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maye the balance could be to not display Marks convictions until specifically asked for?" This is basically the status quo before. But ... the employer is going to background check mark and find them anyway, because they are public record and available in easily searchable databases (see Lexis, etc) In practice, this stuff simply doesn't affect any employment case (at least in the US). None of the right to be forgot…

To the employment case... With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process. While his conviction may still impact his employment prospects, at least he has a fighting chance. With Google in place, Mark never receives a call-back. The employer doesn't bother. How much does this impact Mark in the real world? I have no…

"With the pre-Google system, at least Mark gets his foot in the door and has a chance to impress the prospective employer during the interview process. While his conviction may still impact his employment prospects, at least he has a fighting chance." While this sounds like intuitive it is, AFAIK, wrong.

I'm pretty sure there are ssrn papers/etc on this, where they found that 99% of employers (or something ridiculous) had non-overridable policies, so in practice, no, there was no fighting chance.

I'd personally prefer a system where neither could be used after a cooling off period depending on crime.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#276

Post by ben_jones »

ythn wrote: post #271
davesque wrote: post #269

I'm a bit surprised at all the negative reactions I'm seeing here in response to this. This really seems like a win for individual rights which the tech community is normally all about. As I see it, the heart of the matter is that the average person is really bad at placing any random fact they learn about someone (or something) in its proper context. So that means people should have some legal leverage when it comes…

To me it seems like Yet Another Barrier To Entry For Tech Startups (TM). I remember the good old days (re: 10 years ago) when you could make all sorts of cool things without being bogged down by regulations. I guess that era is over (at least for certain categories of tech like search engines). Also, your right to be forgotten seems to be infringing on my right to remember.

Are you serious or do you yearn for the days when cars didn't have seat belts and paint still contained lead? Start-ups will adapt or they don't deserve to exist.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#277

Post by pitaj »

davesque wrote: post #269

I'm a bit surprised at all the negative reactions I'm seeing here in response to this. This really seems like a win for individual rights which the tech community is normally all about. As I see it, the heart of the matter is that the average person is really bad at placing any random fact they learn about someone (or something) in its proper context. So that means people should have some legal leverage when it comes…

Right to be Forgotten is not an individual right in the classic sense. It is a positive right, one which is really a privilege enforced by the state under the pretext of a "right".

Whereas owning and using an illicit drug (as one example of the kind of individual rights we support) does not require coercing others (be they corporations or individuals) into doing anything, RTBF does. It requires the state coercing (in this case) corporations into censoring (this this case) true, publicly known information visible on their websites.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#279

Post by joqje09309 »

tonyg wrote: post #22
danielfoster wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is the case, then the government should pass laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of criminal record. Instead they've passed the puck (rather badly) to Google. And it's not like Google is the only way to find things. Should newspapers be required to delete pages about an individual or destroy print copies? What about other search engines such as Yandex or Baidu? Of course anyone could just search on Go…

> Mankind has done perfectly well without a "right to be forgotten" for hundreds of thousands of years. On the other hand, mankind has done perfectly well without computers, an internet, or indeed indoor plumbing for hundreds of thousands of years. Sometimes new technologies demand new responses.

Computers and internet existed w/o Google

We don't need huge information management companies is the argument. They're soaking up our data, but it's largely for their gain, not mine.

I have yet to realize one fucking break through due to Google. I use someone else's products, except for search, but I mostly use DuckDuckGo.

Tell me why I should be on the side of Google specifically then?

FAANG != the be all end all.

Shit, 80% of Fortune 500 firms from a generation ago are gone.

Yeah let's keep believing that Google has it figured out forever.

Man, humans are really just into thinking their 90-ish years on Earth are the start and end of the universe.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#280

Post by Houshalter »

bduerst wrote: post #132
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…

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.

Those are just bad ad hoc consequentialist justifications for incarceration. If you really believe that, you can justify life sentences for every minor crime. Since it keeps criminals off the streets and increases utility. Or you can justify having incredibly short sentences. Since the correlation with longer sentences and greater deterrents is pretty small. Criminals tend to think they won't get caught and have high time preference. And I doubt it's terribly effective at rehabilitation.

You can certainly justify discriminating against people with criminal records that way. It's by far the best predictor of job performance. High social trust is probably the most important aspect of a society. Letting known criminals get into positions of power is not an ideal way to achieve that.

The main reason we have prisons is justice. The basic human desire for fairness and consequences for wrongdoing. No one wants to see a murderer get away with it. Even if there is some compelling argument why punishment won't increase utility. For instance, people tend to strongly oppose having sentences done by statistical algorithms. That are vastly better at predicting recidivism than human judges. Because they feel unfair.

And that same desire for fairness is also why people prefer criminals get a second chance.

Post reply on HN