361–370 of 450 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
A real con artist can just fake someone's ID, for them it's pretty trivial.
The issue is less than 1% of convictions ever make it to the Internet, and those people currently will be stigmatized forever, unlike the other 99%, unless they have this mechanism. Google's plea was 'we will self police, but we won't tell you how. We will ignore court orders, because we choose to'. The court objected to that approach.
If you are convicted of new crimes, no matter how long ago, then your sentence may be significantly increased as a repeat offender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Google, Facebook, and LinkedIn all have roughly the same interview process. One hour phone screen, 5 hour on-site interviews, then a decision. I have never encountered a situation with 7 interviews. Bear in mind that many wash out during the phone screen, so no, a fully loaded interview schedule is not that sort of commitment at all.
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…
The problem with this is they ask you up front on your application for most jobs whether you have been convicted of a crime. If the answer is yes, generally your application is thrown in the trash. If you lie and they catch you, they have grounds to reject you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it up to Google's lawyers to do extensive investigations to find out that this guy had "a track record of misleading people"? What if Google decides they don't want to pay for that? Then all that nuance will be gone.
No, Google has the right to fight each such request in court.
This is like a network where you can cause a network to waste a GB of data by sending a KB of data.
The only reasonable response in that situation would be to invest only the money available to fight the worst of the worst requests and blanket accept almost everyone's request to silence anyone else.
If you turn it around and make a single request take a few thousand dollars worth of legal fees and many hours of work then worthless requests which are likely to be denied wont be bothered with but the most worthy may still be seen to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, treatment should be always the same - the records stay. Two things though - many thigs that are considered a crime shouldn't be a crime, and second, if the crime is minor or irrelevant, the record won't hurt the person, otherwise it's a proof that it's not as irrelevant as you think. For example in my country, you will get even parking offenses (repeated, but still) written in your record. It hurts nobody becaus…
> if the crime is minor or irrelevant, the record won't hurt the person, otherwise it's a proof that it's not as irrelevant as you think Let me tell you a little thing called marijuana possession charges and how they make students ineligible for student aid and government loans/grants. Even getting charged with possession of a single joint is enough to bar a student from receiving aid or loans. Such charges or convic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Google has the right to fight each such request in court.
This is basically an impossible burden to bear. If everyone who had anything whatsoever bad about them on the internet decided that the tiny burden of sending a letter was a worthy use of time then fighting the 1/10 which were the most dubious would ruin google financially. This is like a network where you can cause a network to waste a GB of data by sending a KB of data. The only reasonable response in that situatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The protected class didn't pop up out of nowhere. It wasn't a law of physics. We could easily change what is a protected class. Additionally selected enforcement of laws has turned criminal convictions into a way to get rid of a statistically higher rate of minorities without saying that's why you are doing it. If I recall correctly that is the main reason that Massachusetts banned asking for criminal history on appl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?