'Right to be forgotten' ruling creates a quagmire for Google et al

[Norgy]

As much as I'd like most of my Internet past to be stricken from the record, this is a terrible idea.

[Ideologue]

We have rights to a bank loan being forgotten too.  They're called statutes of limitation and/or repose.  I was the beneficiary of one through my mom's estate.

Insofar as I know, those are merely limits on the time the bank has to file suit, not limits on the time a person owes a debt.  If the creditor files suit for payment and the court issues a judgement against the debtor, does the debtor still have a right to be forgotten?

If the creditor files suit for payment after X years, the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim.  (I think it's a 12(b)(6) motion anyway, someone who's practiced law in the past three years can correct me if I'm wrong.  It's disposed of at an early stage anyway.)  It's as much a legal, notional "right to be forgotten" as a sealed criminal record.

Stricken as non-responsive.

If you didn't understand it, it doesn't mean I didn't answer your question.  It's a de facto and de iure limit on the time a person owes a debt, because the courts won't touch the merits after the SOL has expired.  Obviously, there are many ways the SOL may be tolled (e.g., partial payment on the debt) or, by the plaintiff simply suing within the time allotted.

I happily concede that it's only marginally analogous to criminal records--though it's based on the same underlying "fresh start" principles that inform BK protections and sealed criminal records.  In any event, discussing the issue with you makes me sorry I brought it up.

[grumbler]

We have rights to a bank loan being forgotten too.  They're called statutes of limitation and/or repose.  I was the beneficiary of one through my mom's estate.

Insofar as I know, those are merely limits on the time the bank has to file suit, not limits on the time a person owes a debt.  If the creditor files suit for payment and the court issues a judgement against the debtor, does the debtor still have a right to be forgotten?

If the creditor files suit for payment after X years, the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim.  (I think it's a 12(b)(6) motion anyway, someone who's practiced law in the past three years can correct me if I'm wrong.  It's disposed of at an early stage anyway.)  It's as much a legal, notional "right to be forgotten" as a sealed criminal record.

Stricken as non-responsive.

If you didn't understand it, it doesn't mean I didn't answer your question.  It's a de facto and de iure limit on the time a person owes a debt, because the courts won't touch the merits after the SOL has expired.  Obviously, there are many ways the SOL may be tolled (e.g., partial payment on the debt) or, by the plaintiff simply suing within the time allotted.

I happily concede that it's only marginally analogous to criminal records--though it's based on the same underlying "fresh start" principles that inform BK protections and sealed criminal records.  In any event, discussing the issue with you makes me sorry I brought it up.

I understood the case well, and stated it clearly.  When i asked " If the creditor files suit for payment and the court issues a judgement against the debtor, does the debtor still have a right to be forgotten?" you responded that "If the creditor files suit for payment after X years, the case is dismissed for failure to state a claim."  Your response ignores the facts of the question.  Its not my fault if you cannot understand plain English and issue a non-responsive answer.

The issuance of a judgement for payment is roughly analogous to the issue of a sentence for a crime.  You have yet to show that this judgement will be forgotten, as required by a "right to be forgotten."

I understand why you regret responding earlier, when you clearly hadn't read the question.  Maybe this time you can respond after reading, not before.

Ultimately, of course, my point is that even Spain doesn't really have a "right to be forgotten."  They just have a better shield around their criminal's past records than some other countries.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

this is interesting. We've had this problem at work (I work at a newspaper), with people calling up saying they want certain articles about themselves taken down. Example, someone who was charged for fraud, now out of prison, saying that it's not helpful to his job search when the first thing that comes up on google for his name is our article about him being found guilty. We've resisted those sorts of things, my argument being...It's a newspaper article. You can't change that.

And I've always thought that I want someone who has been convicted of fraud to have to explain that conviction to future employers.

I have seen two arguments to counter this:

* If a person was charged with a crime, but was acquitted or had the charges dropped, the search may show a biased view since the latter actions may generate little if any attention.
* The EU apparently has laws that seal many criminal records after a certain period of time unless there is a valid trust or security related reason to access them.  Web archives of old news items violate these sealed record laws.

The trouble is that the notion of a "right to forget" is completely new.  Google isn't doing anything new here - you could always go back and look at old newspapers in the library.  Google just makes the process of finding old news dramatically easier.

From what I have been reading elsewhere, that is exactly the idea.  The argument is that services like Google make finding information too easy and thus violate the EU's right to privacy.  The inefficiency of having to manually thumb through old newspapers is apparently a privacy protection.

If there is a "right to forget" does that extend to libraries as well?

The ruling refers to "data processing" and cover's Google's ability to provide the data as search results, not to have the data.  I presume that if a library decided to digitize its newspaper and magazine archives into a web-accessible, searchable collection they would have the same issues as Google.

I think the ruling may open a can of worms relative to how the EU right to privacy is interpreted in the future.  Its basically saying that the right to privacy gives people a right to control to some nebulously defined degree what third parties say about them and how they say it.

[mongers]

Guys, VM has been assiduously cataloging our posts since day one, in short we're buggered; none of us can afford the consequent blackmail if we become CEOs or career politicians, saving Hortland. 

[garbon]

Guys, VM has been assiduously cataloging our posts since day one, in short we're buggered; none of us can afford the consequent blackmail if we become CEOs or career politicians, saving Hortland. 

I stand by everything I've posted though I don't remember any of it.

[Josephus]

this is interesting. We've had this problem at work (I work at a newspaper), with people calling up saying they want certain articles about themselves taken down. Example, someone who was charged for fraud, now out of prison, saying that it's not helpful to his job search when the first thing that comes up on google for his name is our article about him being found guilty. We've resisted those sorts of things, my argument being...It's a newspaper article. You can't change that.

And I've always thought that I want someone who has been convicted of fraud to have to explain that conviction to future employers.

I have seen two arguments to counter this:

* If a person was charged with a crime, but was acquitted or had the charges dropped, the search may show a biased view since the latter actions may generate little if any attention.
* The EU apparently has laws that seal many criminal records after a certain period of time unless there is a valid trust or security related reason to access them.  Web archives of old news items violate these sealed record laws.

The trouble is that the notion of a "right to forget" is completely new.  Google isn't doing anything new here - you could always go back and look at old newspapers in the library.  Google just makes the process of finding old news dramatically easier.

From what I have been reading elsewhere, that is exactly the idea.  The argument is that services like Google make finding information too easy and thus violate the EU's right to privacy.  The inefficiency of having to manually thumb through old newspapers is apparently a privacy protection.

If there is a "right to forget" does that extend to libraries as well?

The ruling refers to "data processing" and cover's Google's ability to provide the data as search results, not to have the data.  I presume that if a library decided to digitize its newspaper and magazine archives into a web-accessible, searchable collection they would have the same issues as Google.

I think the ruling may open a can of worms relative to how the EU right to privacy is interpreted in the future.  Its basically saying that the right to privacy gives people a right to control to some nebulously defined degree what third parties say about them and how they say it.

Do web archives violate EU laws pertaining to this? Don't know why. Don't library archives carry old newspapers? Do they destroy them? I don't think so.
The issue here, in any case, is not whether newspapers should continue to archive them, but rather that Google should remove them from its search parameters.

[mongers]

Guys, VM has been assiduously cataloging our posts since day one, in short we're buggered; none of us can afford the consequent blackmail if we become CEOs or career politicians, saving Hortland. 

I stand by everything I've posted though I don't remember any of it.

Indeed, that's precisely my problem too.       

[DGuller]

And I've always thought that I want someone who has been convicted of fraud to have to explain that conviction to future employers.

Fair enough, but realistically speaking, you don't get a chance to explain it.  You just essentially get on the unemployable list, getting on the big pile of resumes filtered away from consideration by HR.

The trouble is that the notion of a "right to forget" is completely new.  Google isn't doing anything new here - you could always go back and look at old newspapers in the library.  Google just makes the process of finding old news dramatically easier.

I never find such arguments compelling.  Sometimes the fact that technology makes some things dramatically easier in itself changes the concept, especially when you go from "possible, but highly impractical" to "possible and very practical".  At the end of the day what's important is the effect on individuals, and whether that effect is caused by an all-new phenomenon or an increase in efficacy of the old phenomenon should be irrelevant.

[Capetan Mihali]

I've lost track of how many clients I've personally met or represented who lost their jobs immediately once their arrest was reported (or, in NC and TN, when their mugshot was displayed in one of those awful rags they sell at gas stations and the like).  Dozens and dozens.  Talking about misdemeanor stuff by and large, not anything horrifying.

And arrest records tend to show up just the same as convictions when employers run a criminal background check.  For a lot of people charged with first-time petty crimes, the real damage was already done before the conviction and sentence were passed down. 

People also tend to have fantastical ideas about the likelihood of getting things expunged.  In most US states, it's limited to an incredibly narrow set of circumstances for adult criminal proceedings, and it's very expensive to even try.

[Ideologue]

People also tend to have fantastical ideas about the likelihood of getting things expunged.  In most US states, it's limited to an incredibly narrow set of circumstances for adult criminal proceedings, and it's very expensive to even try.

Lol, that's no joke.  I can't tell you how many times I've been asked by various people in my life "why don't you just get it expunged?"  Because it's not possible.  WHICH ONE OF US READ THE STATUTES, DIPSHIT?

The collateral consequences of criminality in the 21st century cannot be overstated.  Unfortunately, they can be understated, like when my (otherwise competent) attorney didn't advise me of them back in ought-three when while recommending pleading guilty to a misdemeanor instead of fighting the felony (and I had a solid self-defense defense), thus committing malpractice.

[DGuller]

I've lost track of how many clients I've personally met or represented who lost their jobs immediately once their arrest was reported (or, in NC and TN, when their mugshot was displayed in one of those awful rags they sell at gas stations and the like).  Dozens and dozens.  Talking about misdemeanor stuff by and large, not anything horrifying.

And arrest records tend to show up just the same as convictions when employers run a criminal background check.  For a lot of people charged with first-time petty crimes, the real damage was already done before the conviction and sentence were passed down. 

People also tend to have fantastical ideas about the likelihood of getting things expunged.  In most US states, it's limited to an incredibly narrow set of circumstances for adult criminal proceedings, and it's very expensive to even try.

Exactly.  My big concern is that in the future, we will have a huge caste of unemployable people, because it's very cost-effective and not even irrational to have a list of automatic disqualifiers.  Applying judgment takes time and effort, and why do it when you have plenty of clean resumes to fall back on?

[Ed Anger]

People also tend to have fantastical ideas about the likelihood of getting things expunged.  In most US states, it's limited to an incredibly narrow set of circumstances for adult criminal proceedings, and it's very expensive to even try.

Lol, that's no joke.  I can't tell you how many times I've been asked by various people in my life "why don't you just get it expunged?"  Because it's not possible.  WHICH ONE OF US READ THE STATUTES, DIPSHIT?

The collateral consequences of criminality in the 21st century cannot be overstated.  Unfortunately, they can be understated, like when my (otherwise competent) attorney didn't advise me of them back in ought-three when while recommending pleading guilty to a misdemeanor instead of fighting the felony (and I had a solid self-defense defense), thus committing malpractice.

I asked. 

I can't help it that your state is ass backwards.

[Ideologue]

I think you asked like one time.  I was thinking more of folks--not here (at least I don't remember)--that asked me like every time they saw me for a couple of years, i.e., family.

[Capetan Mihali]

People also tend to have fantastical ideas about the likelihood of getting things expunged.  In most US states, it's limited to an incredibly narrow set of circumstances for adult criminal proceedings, and it's very expensive to even try.

Lol, that's no joke.  I can't tell you how many times I've been asked by various people in my life "why don't you just get it expunged?"  Because it's not possible.  WHICH ONE OF US READ THE STATUTES, DIPSHIT?

It's sort of interesting that it doesn't jibe with most people's intuition that if you stay out of trouble for a long time, you ought to be able to get it wiped if it wasn't too serious.

In N.C., you could get an expungement for a <1/2 oz. marijuana conviction from before they passed the law mandating a diversion-type program for those cases, with some other conditions attached IIRC (that it was your only conviction, maybe) as well as paying like $300 to the court let alone hiring an attorney.

In Vt. you can seek the expungement of an arrest/non-conviction record, which I think will be granted based on circumstances.  From what I've heard, you can get it if your case was dismissed for, e.g. lack of evidence or an illegal search, but definitely not if it was dismissed as part of an agreement to plead to other charges.  Of course, you have to find and pay a private attorney to make the case for you (public defender's office can't handle that), which the vast majority of defendants can't realistically do.

The collateral consequences of criminality in the 21st century cannot be overstated.  Unfortunately, they can be understated, like when my (otherwise competent) attorney didn't advise me of them back in ought-three when while recommending pleading guilty to a misdemeanor instead of fighting the felony (and I had a solid self-defense defense), thus committing malpractice.

Problem is, most of us have never been employers or members of professional licensing panels, so we don't really know what the consequence of a given conviction is going to be on someone's employment prospects. 

Conviction for any felony (or a qualifying misdemeanor involving domestic violence) = lose the right to possess a firearm forever (with the possible exception of muzzle-loaders), that's pretty straightforward. 

With immigration, for instance, the collateral consequences are a mess, but at least somewhere scattered among the statutes, administrative rulemaking, case law, etc.  (BTW, although it's not ideal, all you're required to do is warn a client that a given conviction could have adverse immigration consequences.  Not figure out and explain exactly what those might be.)

Employability just isn't like either of those in terms of how nebulous it is.