Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

legalcheek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 368 posts

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#351

Post by bko »

rootusrootus wrote: post #341
bko wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are only some sectors "vulnerable" and who is to make that call? How about the person cooking my food? You're over-thinking it, trying to solve for a problem that doesn't exist. No one has a "right" to work for me. There's plenty of roles that accept ex-cons and orgs that actively hire them.

> No one has a "right" to work for me. True, but surely your rights to know everything about someone who would work for you also has limits.

Of course, I don't need to know everything, just if I'm hiring them I'd like to know if they have been tried and convicted of a crime, and then I can make a judgement whether it's disqualifying for my particular need.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#352

Post by reactordev »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #349
Muromec wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually find this amusing and do it because I like to. We are witnessing the new tabooed word, where the usual sacrilege doesn't hit the nerve anymore.

But pedophile isn’t really taboo as a word, there is nothing sacrilegious about typing or saying it. PDF file is pronounced the same and means the same thing. The alternate version is just a rumored way to avoid being down ranked by a corporate algorithm. Maybe I misunderstand your meaning.

People are afraid to say pedophile or it gets caught in a chat filter. I’m not a fan of calling it PDF files but if that’s what it takes to have this discussion, so be it.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#353

Post by reactordev »

AngryData wrote: post #309
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, when applying for a loan, being a sex offender shouldn’t matter. When applying for a mortgage across the street from an elementary school, it should. Should it though? You can buy a piece of real estate without living there, e.g. because it's a rental property, or maybe the school is announced to be shutting down even though it hasn't yet. And in general this should have nothing to do with the bank; why shoul…

Yeah I agree, a corporation should not only not care, they should be actively prevented from being allowed to make discriminations base on anything outside of whether they can pay or not. If they sense a potential other problem, at worst it should be reported to police or some other governmental authority, it simply isn't their business otherwise. To me any other viewpoint inevitably leads to abuse of one group or cl…

There should be ways for a corporation to vet based on severity of the role to match the severity of the candidate, backgrounds included. Cases like, you wouldn’t want to hire a CFO who has been convicted of fraud. Likewise you wouldn’t want a president who’s been convicted of crimes either.

But if you don’t need access to sensitive information, you aren’t dealing with corporate funds or accounting, just a cog in the machine, I don’t think it should matter.

The issue is now, even the smallest issue from years ago is flagged by an AI, which in turn rejects you from a downstream workflow, which doesn’t put you in the hiring managers lap.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#354

Post by reactordev »

rootusrootus wrote: post #342
bko wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You terms are acceptable. I'll put a sign out on my business that says "none of our employees have criminal records". Note you are free to advertise hiring prior offenders. You can also look up business ownership details and see if they have criminal records as well.

> I'll put a sign out on my business that says "none of our employees have criminal records". Why only criminal records? There is a huge amount of potentially useful information about everyone that goes way beyond criminal records.

Define useful?

Credit history? Rental history? You want to make those a part of your job application? That could be discrimination…

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#355

Post by mr_toad »

charcircuit wrote: post #249
reactordev wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>”Free to ingest and make someones crimes a permanent part of AI datasets resulting in forever-convictions? No thanks.” 1000x this. It’s one thing to have a felony for manslaughter. It’s another to have a felony for drug possession. In either case, if enough time has passed, and they have shown that they are reformed (long employment, life events, etc) then I think it should be removed from consideration. Not expunge…

The AI should decide if it's still relevant or not. People should fully understand that their actions reflect their character and this should influence them to always do the right thing.

> People should fully understand that their actions reflect their character and this should influence them to always do the right thing.

Shame the same standards don’t apply to the people running the government.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#356

Post by [deleted] »

anonymous908213 wrote: post #311
LightBug1 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus ... that gives me a new perspective on Japan ...

The situation in the US is significantly worse, and probably numerous other countries I haven't experience with. Rather than asking if you've committed a crime, American employers/landlords will do a background check and are liable to turn you down if you've ever been arrested , even if the charges were dropped or you were found not guilty. Comparatively, the reason Japanese employers/landlords may even ask about hav…

[deleted]

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#357

Post by naasking »

dirasieb wrote: post #304
criddell wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bad faith take. In one comment you managed to violate a whole bunch of the HN commenting guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

how else would you interpret admitting you don't think parents should have a right to know the backgrounds of the people with access to their children before making informed decisions on whether or not to allow it? please, show me your good faith interpretation and i will take back my comment

Nobody gets to have unbounded information about others. It's weird that you think there should be no privacy constraints.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#358

Post by naasking »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #130
whizzter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open to research yes. Free to ingest and make someones crimes a permanent part of AI datasets resulting in forever-convictions? No thanks. AI firms have shown themselves to be playing fast and loose with copyrighted works, a teenager shouldn't have their permanent AI profile become "shoplifter" because they did a crime at 15 yo that would otherwise have been expunged after a few years.

Totally agree. And it goes beyond criminal history. Just because I choose to make a dataset publicly available doesn't mean I want some AI memorizing it and using it to generate profit.

Publishing something publicly means readers can do anything they want with the knowledge they gained from it. They just can't redistribute it verbatim due to copyright.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#359

Post by dghlsakjg »

reactordev wrote: post #352
dghlsakjg wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But pedophile isn’t really taboo as a word, there is nothing sacrilegious about typing or saying it. PDF file is pronounced the same and means the same thing. The alternate version is just a rumored way to avoid being down ranked by a corporate algorithm. Maybe I misunderstand your meaning.

People are afraid to say pedophile or it gets caught in a chat filter. I’m not a fan of calling it PDF files but if that’s what it takes to have this discussion, so be it.

I understand that exists, and my point is that this is not one of those places.

Preemptive universal compliance to private censorship rules is a bad thing. We should not normalize it.

That's why I call it out when I see it. It serves no one to speak like you're inside the walled garden when you aren't. This kind of garbage leaking out because of corporate policies doesn't serve anyone, least of all victims of pedophiles.

Re: Ministry of Justice orders deletion of the UK's largest court reporting database

#360

Post by dirasieb »

naasking wrote: post #357
dirasieb wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how else would you interpret admitting you don't think parents should have a right to know the backgrounds of the people with access to their children before making informed decisions on whether or not to allow it? please, show me your good faith interpretation and i will take back my comment

Nobody gets to have unbounded information about others. It's weird that you think there should be no privacy constraints.

what if these “others” voluntarily apply to a position where they have regular contact and help take care of your children? is it ok then to be informed on whether or not they are a convicted child rapist?
Post reply on HN