[deleted]
Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
401–410 of 450 posts
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#402Earlier 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.
I don't know where you live but here employers aren't allowed to look up things other than what is provided by the applicant anyway. Googling the name and using that for hiring decisions is simply illegal. Just ask all the relevant and legally allowed bits in your application process.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#403And people downvoted me when I said the EU was an enemy of freedom...
What freedom? The freedom of the individual to be forgotten? Or for the corporation? What freedom is EU the enemy of? I think the fact of the matter is this will give more freedom to those that need it.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Where's a valid technological problem? I see the problem being that there's true information out there that is unpleasant to somebody, and that somebody wants to force others to not be able to access that information. I feel it is basically a cultural issue. Many Europeans (including me) believe that the "right to be forgotten" is real, i.e. we want that right. Company with american cultural roots feels differentl…
I’m an European and I’m completeley against this kind of censoring. Europe is not homogenous, don’t generalize. And this right to be forgotten is not a “human right” it’s a second chance, a gift, that should be given cautiously. Next time some polititian will want something to be forgotten.
If they declare it a right then it's a right. That's all that word means.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#405This 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 think we trust our governments much more than US citizens trust there government. There's a line…
> Note that this doesn't mean we like any particular politician. We despise many politicians. But the idea of government as a force for good still remains in Europe as far as I can see (UK).
Coincidentally, this is how most Americans seem to feel about their government's foreign policy.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#406This 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 think we trust our governments much more than US citizens trust there government. There's a line…
Non-political part of government? That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Nothing that sucks away your tax dollars isn't political to the politicians.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Even if Google can resist the EU about global censorship, small search engines can't afford to.
Or they just don't do business in the EU. Lots of US businesses (and, for that matter Chinese, Japanese, etc.) just do business in their home countries. To the degree the EU makes it too difficult for certain types of businesses to operate there, they won't. It's a big market but it's not that big. If businesses can pull out of China because they can't reasonably operate there, they can pull out of Europe.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Information has to be false for it to be defamation, it's in the definition. The news article they are trying to de-list does not contain false information.
It doesn't have to be false for it to be defamatory. It has to be intended to ruin someone's reputation in an unwarranted manner.
Not in any legal jurisdiction I'm aware of, and certainly not the EU Courts. Truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#409Right to be remembered about being forgotten.
Re: Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case
#410Earlier 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?
They don't have to do the actual bg check though, just ask you do you have a criminal record. If you say no, then they do the check at the end and you do, you get passed over for lying, not for having a record.
This is how many low paying front line jobs have always hired.