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

321–330 of 450 posts

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#321

Post by zeth___ »

danShumway wrote: post #94

This is kind of a trend I've been noticing, where Europe will try to fix a valid technological problem, but pick the most problematic or poorly implemented solution to do it. It's not clear to me what the difference is between a government censoring someone directly and a government making it impossible for anyone to find a piece of information. Right to Be Forgotten only works if it becomes prohibitively expensive f…

>It's not clear to me why it's not troubling to European citizens for their government to be in charge of what information is and isn't relevant to the public. Whenever I ask people about this, I get the response "well, that's why we have courts." I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine.

I trust the European courts more than I trust American advertisers.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#322

Post by mirimir »

paxys wrote: post #212
wumpus wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one big difference, and it's Orwellian -- courts and politicians are claiming that removing something from a search engine isn't censorship.

Yup, essentially "we're not blocking any content, just blocking any means for you to find it".

As I understand it, Google only blocks this stuff for searches from the EU. So all you need is a VPN with a non-EU IP address, and you can find whatever. Right?

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#323

Post by tomkarlo »

equalunique wrote: post #284
quanticle wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me why this problem couldn't be solved more elegantly by creating anti-discrimination laws around criminal records. Because anti-discrimination laws around criminal records will work about as well as anti-discrimination laws regarding all the other protected classes (race, gender, age, etc.). Companies will very quickly figure out how to work around them, and will find ways to reject candidates for…

>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?

How much does an outsourced background check? Running an interview pool on someone using a bunch of skilled employees costs probably $4K or so. Figure 7 interviews, 3 hrs each (prep, interview, feedback, hiring meeting) plus someone to arrange the onsite. If those are $150K employees, the fully-loaded cost of 20 hrs of work is going to be over $4K.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#324

Post by tomkarlo »

danShumway wrote: post #318
tripzilch wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to the US. We don't do the "jury of peers" thing (and I'm still not sure if this if really true or just stories/TV but, aren't juries specifically selected to have no background in the case matter, or legal matter?). Further, it's not unheard of that the judges a…

> And in addition to that, the "if the law is in fact on your side"-part is also easier to determine beforehand I do think that American courts have a problem with this, and I do wish Americans cared more about it. It's fairly standard to hear people over here talk about whether or not something is legal and say "Oh, but I'm not a lawyer, make sure you consult with one before making any decisions." That always irrita…

California's constitution alone is over 100 pages, never mind thousands of pages of other legal code as well as precedents. It's not that the laws are so complex, it's that they have to cover so much it's never going to be feasible for someone not doing it professionally to be an expert on it.

Folks say "you should consult with a lawyer" when the topic is something that's too obscure or marginal to be obvious to a non-lawyer... that doesn't mean the laws are overly complex, just that there are always going to be marginal situations.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#325

Post by gohbgl »

ben_jones wrote: post #276
ythn wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cars had been equipped with seat belts before it was required by law.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#326

Post by alistairSH »

DannyBee wrote: post #275
alistairSH wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oof. I knew those policies existed. But if it’s truly 99%, out system is well and truly broken.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#327

Post by chrononaut »

mirimir wrote: post #322
paxys wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, essentially "we're not blocking any content, just blocking any means for you to find it".

As I understand it, Google only blocks this stuff for searches from the EU. So all you need is a VPN with a non-EU IP address, and you can find whatever. Right?

While valid, only a fraction of the population would know to do this, and then a smaller fraction would believe it's worthwhile. It's an added inconvenience that has to outweigh the disadvantages of not doing it.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#328

Post by talltimtom »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #173

> Explaining the decisions made on Friday, the judge said one of the men had continued to "mislead the public" while the other had "shown remorse". Okay, great, so Google's now required to judge right to be forgotten requests based on whether the criminal has "shown remorse." Yeah, that's not arbitrary or even a little impossible to do at scale. Let's grant that there are good cases for removing pages from a search i…

Yes, google can’t immitate the courts. So they just have to honor the request. Besidde people heavily intetsted Nopone gests hurt g

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#329

Post by mirimir »

chrononaut wrote: post #327
mirimir wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, Google only blocks this stuff for searches from the EU. So all you need is a VPN with a non-EU IP address, and you can find whatever. Right?

While valid, only a fraction of the population would know to do this, and then a smaller fraction would believe it's worthwhile. It's an added inconvenience that has to outweigh the disadvantages of not doing it.

True. And thanks for confirming my supposition. It's rare to see this mentioned in coverage of the issue. For reasons that are understandable, I guess.

The EU has pressured Google to censor its results globally, as I recall. But Google has prevailed on that, at least. So far, anyway.

Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case

#330

Post by gremy0 »

volak wrote: post #228
gremy0 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are still arguing against human nature. Give yourself a scenario - you have two equal candidates: a) background check clean, no google results b) background check lists sealed conviction, no google results you'll choose? now another: a) background check clean, no google results b) background check lists sealed conviction, google results says he stole some cookies you'll choose? Probably (a) both times. Unless in…

This again misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm arguing for background checks that allow employers to make reasonable decisions based on those checks show. and then act within the normal confines of employment law.

I've been through background checks for business, I'll probably have more in the future. They are extremely intrusive and uncomfortable, but I don't have a problem with them, because they are pertinent to the business, and conducted by professionals that are accountable for what they say about me and what they do with my information.

Google combined with any tosser that can put up a their side of a story on the internet is no substitution for a background check. This is a joke. People hitting the front page of google with my name are accountable to no-one. They aren't required to notify me, nevermind ask my permission to gather this information. They have no incentive to report back clear unbiased information

By conducting background research this way you sow distrust. It is not mutually consensual, controllable or fair. I wouldn't go near a company that was doing this without very good reasons. I have no problem with the EU making it difficult to abuse search tools in this way.

Post reply on HN