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

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#301

Post by andrewflnr » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

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…

The right to be forgotten is censorship. You may believe it's worthwhile censorship, but the fact remains that it's censorship. That's why we're negative about it: it's censorship. Please don't act surprised.

Plus it's pretty much technologically infeasible, and will produce a giant layer of disgusting hacks that don't even effectively protect the people they're supposed to. That might have something to do with why the tech community isn't happy.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#302

Post by TomMarius » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #298

TomMarius wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things shouldn't be considered a crime in the first place, and I asked for real examples. I won't turn down a candidate for my sw dev position because they used to be a prostitute.

HR will just filter out all candidates with a record to be on the safe side. They won’t evaluate if the record is relevant or not.

HR will also filter out candidates without an university (sometimes even specific, expensive ones) and you're not complaining about that. What about fixing HR instead?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#303

Post by 794CD01 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:46 PM UTC

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.

Are you suggesting you are not able to do that?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#304

Post by 794CD01 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

F_r_k wrote: post #174

enitihas wrote: post #163

I am just curious, what about the edge cases? What if a person commits acts of domestic violence with their romantic partners, and then gets Google to remove that record. Don't their future partners deserve to know? What if someone commits legal but shady acts in dealing with people. Why should they have a right to remove it from the public record?

What if they stole cookies ? Shouldn't store managers deserve to know ? Where do you put the limit then ?

The manager can make the decision whether they care that the person stole cookies.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#305

Post by TheMagicHorsey » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

Why does anyone have a right to be forgotten after committing a crime or defrauding others?

Others bear the cost and you get the luxury of starting over? After seeing so many serial scammers on the Internet getting away with crime time and again by finding new, naive victims after we catch them, it gets really tiresome when the government gives the scammers tools to force us to take down reviews and warnings.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#306

Post by ivanhoe » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:09 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #256

danShumway wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh cool, I didn't know that. Thanks for commenting. Is there something I'm missing about Right to be Forgotten then? Why is this needed if it's already illegal to discriminate against someone over minor crimes or scandals? Does the law not have much teeth or something?

Right to be forgotten can apply to anything where a private business has my data. Case-in-point: Facebook. Most people don't believe that when you ask a company like Facebook or Google to delete your account, they actually delete your data. Sure, you no longer have access to it, definitely, but most people seem to assume that it's not entirely gone. RTBF ensures that companies whom you provided information to delete…

Or if I'm, say, a convicted con artist I can hide that fact from my future victims, making any future crimes significantly easier...

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#307

Post by wannabedevelopr » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #305

Why does anyone have a right to be forgotten after committing a crime or defrauding others? Others bear the cost and you get the luxury of starting over? After seeing so many serial scammers on the Internet getting away with crime time and again by finding new, naive victims after we catch them, it gets really tiresome when the government gives the scammers tools to force us to take down reviews and warnings.

Justice systems work differently in Europe than in the States; Rehabilitation and reintegration being key not throwing someone in a hole and loose the key.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#308

Post by rootlocus » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:10 PM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #291

rootlocus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, you were probably feeling safer without being connected 24/7 to all the problems in the world. I'm really skeptical you were more afraid of strangers because you couldn't access public records about them.

No, I'm feeling safer because employers are able to look it up and thus make better decisions. It has nothing to do with me looking up random strangers.

Employers don't look up candidates on google, they look up criminal records with the authorities. It has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten. It was possible before, and it will be possible in the future.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#309

Post by Guanjin » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

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…

I'm someone who once upon a time had a very bad trip after consuming some hallucinations, then freaked out and resisted when the cops attempted to arrest me. Local news heard the story and had a field day reporting on it. I served 3 months for it but now it will follow me around for the rest of my life. I'm not a bad person but one might get that perspective googling my name and there's essentially nothing I can ever do about that except try and manipulate the page rank and/or change my name. I appreciate that there are people out there like you that consider the views of people like "Mark".

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#310

Post by andymal » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 10:16 PM UTC

wahnfrieden wrote: post #296

equalunique wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What will probably happen is that companies will move the background check step ahead of the interview step. The cost of doing interviews to screen candidates is much lower than background checks. Why would a company want to do that step first?

Googling someone is a longer process than an in-person interview?

Googling someone is not even close to as effective as paying for real background check services, which can be very costly and take days or weeks. For example, how can you be sure that your new employee didn't change their name after committing a crime? How do you know if the John Smith applying to your open position is the same one as the murderer in some article? Google searching isn't good enough for these cases or any company that takes pre-employment screening seriously. Source: Me. I work at an employment screening company.