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

[Josquius]

There's certainly a point to be made that one could always go to the library and search back issues of newspapers, legal records, etc.... But let's face it, nobody is ever going to do that unless they have serious suspicions.
Even then, if a guy was convicted of something minor it would only show up on page 6 of one unimportant issue. For all intents and purposes it is forgotten.
With google though,... Just type in the name and there it is. It certainly is a game changer in practice even if not legally.

[Razgovory]

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.

Can you ask for a pardon?

[grumbler]

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?

So your argument isn't that there are a lot of people who won't get jobs (because there is, after all, "plenty of clean resumes to fall back on"), but that people without criminal records will have an advantage over those that do?  I cannot for the life of me see why that is a big concern of yours.

If jobs get plentiful enough that the market runs out of people without criminal records, then businesses will make it their business to include people with criminal records in their non-automatically-disqualified applications pile.  Until then, well, it sucks to have a criminal record, but it sucks not to have a job for reasons beyond your control, too.

I have no problem with court systems saying that criminal records of type X are not valid after Y years, and with them flagging such records and requiring any entity that uses the court's records to respect those flags.  I don't agree, though, that the entities using the courts' records, or the courts themselves, or other state entities have to respect some "right to be forgotten" on the part of the people in the records.   Right to privacy, yes.  Right to be forgotten?  No.

[DGuller]

So your argument isn't that there are a lot of people who won't get jobs (because there is, after all, "plenty of clean resumes to fall back on"), but that people without criminal records will have an advantage over those that do?  I cannot for the life of me see why that is a big concern of yours.

No, I'm saying that there will be a situation where you both have a large pool of people looking for work, and a large number of jobs that aren't going to be filled.  You can easily have a situation where every job opening has hundreds of resumes, and yet the total number of job seekers is smaller than the total number of job openings. 

It may sound like a stupid system that will be corrected by the magical invisible hand, but I'm not so sure.  It is perfectly rational on an individual level to filter out the resumes by simple criteria, even if doing that contributes to exacerbating the overall labor shortage.  It may also be a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent:  someone unable to gain adequate employment will eventually lose the skills that qualify him for that adequate employment.

[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.

Can you ask for a pardon?

Pardons aren't expungments and don't function so: the record remains.  Worse than useless, really.

[CountDeMoney]

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.

Yeah, the arrest always makes the front page.  The acquittal a year and a half later? Somewhere between the obituaries and the classified ads for used snow blowers for sale.  Runs good.

[CountDeMoney]

I wish we could exercise the right for Timmay to be forgotten.

[Eddie Teach]

Then you would deny yourself the pleasure of mocking him. 

[grumbler]

No, I'm saying that there will be a situation where you both have a large pool of people looking for work, and a large number of jobs that aren't going to be filled.  You can easily have a situation where every job opening has hundreds of resumes, and yet the total number of job seekers is smaller than the total number of job openings. 

It may sound like a stupid system that will be corrected by the magical invisible hand, but I'm not so sure.  It is perfectly rational on an individual level to filter out the resumes by simple criteria, even if doing that contributes to exacerbating the overall labor shortage.  It may also be a self-fulfilling prophecy to an extent:  someone unable to gain adequate employment will eventually lose the skills that qualify him for that adequate employment.

I don't see the motivation for employers to arbitrarily decide not to hire workers that meet their needs and would increase their profits.  That doesn't seem "perfectly rational" to me at all.

Hiring usually tries to find the best-qualified person for the job opening.  They are not looking for the perfect candidate.  If a company sorts through 1,000 resumes for 600 jobs, and disqualifies 500 of the resumes on an arbitrary rule like "no criminal record," why is it more rational to leave 100 jobs unfilled rather than re-examining the 500 initially-rejected resumes under a less stringent criteria to find 100 people for the remaining positions?

[DGuller]

I don't see the motivation for employers to arbitrarily decide not to hire workers that meet their needs and would increase their profits.  That doesn't seem "perfectly rational" to me at all.

It is individually rational because you can't possibly evaluate hundreds of applications in detail.  It would be cost-prohibitive, especially since to truly have even a surface idea about the quality of the candidate, you have to talk to him.  You need some ways to prune the resumes cheaply, and criminal record is the easiest criteria.  It's also effective, in a short-sighted way, since people with criminal record probably are on average worse applicants than people without it.

Hiring usually tries to find the best-qualified person for the job opening.  They are not looking for the perfect candidate.  If a company sorts through 1,000 resumes for 600 jobs, and disqualifies 500 of the resumes on an arbitrary rule like "no criminal record," why is it more rational to leave 100 jobs unfilled rather than re-examining the 500 initially-rejected resumes under a less stringent criteria to find 100 people for the remaining positions?

What company has 600 openings?  It's more like 600 companies have 1 opening, and all of these 600 companies are trying to narrow down the list of 1,000 resumes each one of them get.  Yes, looking at it above on the macro level, we know that 100 of the companies must be coveting candidates that will ultimately take another job offer, but from the company's perspective, they're inundated with 1,000 resumes for their one opening, and they have to filter through the mess somehow.

[grumbler]

What company has 600 openings?  It's more like 600 companies have 1 opening, and all of these 600 companies are trying to narrow down the list of 1,000 resumes each one of them get.  Yes, looking at it above on the macro level, we know that 100 of the companies must be coveting candidates that will ultimately take another job offer, but from the company's perspective, they're inundated with 1,000 resumes for their one opening, and they have to filter through the mess somehow.

Many times companies will have 600 openings; they are opening multiple smaller facilities, they are opening a single new large facility, whatever.  You cannot argue successfully against an example because the example may be less likely than another example that doesn't disprove the first.

In any case, even if it is 600 companies with one opening, the companies that are employing the 501st-600th candidate don't have a candidate that lacks a criminal record.  Either they forgo profit by hiring nobody, for no reason, or they go back to their resume stack with fewer arbitrary rules.  The latter seems more perfectly rational than to impose arbitrary hiring rules that eliminate all of their candidates!

[Caliga]

Giggity.

[Ed Anger]

Cal just splooged.

[DGuller]

Many times companies will have 600 openings; they are opening multiple smaller facilities, they are opening a single new large facility, whatever.  You cannot argue successfully against an example because the example may be less likely than another example that doesn't disprove the first.

I can.  This isn't abstract math, where one counterexample is sufficient.  We're discussing the typical cases here, there are always exceptions.  If someone is unemployed and essentially unemployable, then having the feint possibility of a jackpot where hundreds of identical positions open up in one company is little comfort.  You can also argue that the unemployable guy can have a friend or a friend of a friend with the hiring power, who would help him out of the predicament.  Making the policy based on unlikely examples is not advisable.

In any case, even if it is 600 companies with one opening, the companies that are employing the 501st-600th candidate don't have a candidate that lacks a criminal record.  Either they forgo profit by hiring nobody, for no reason, or they go back to their resume stack with fewer arbitrary rules.  The latter seems more perfectly rational than to impose arbitrary hiring rules that eliminate all of their candidates!

You're implicitly assuming a quick and orderly functioning of the job offer process.  What happens in reality is not that some positions go permanently unfilled, but rather companies wait a long time until finally they find a qualified candidate out of the huge stack of resumes.

[grumbler]

I can.  This isn't abstract math, where one counterexample is sufficient.  We're discussing the typical cases here, there are always exceptions.  If someone is unemployed and essentially unemployable, then having the feint possibility of a jackpot where hundreds of identical positions open up in one company is little comfort.  You can also argue that the unemployable guy can have a friend or a friend of a friend with the hiring power, who would help him out of the predicament.  Making the policy based on unlikely examples is not advisable.

Whether a person is unemployed and unemployable is far more a function of the economy than it is a function of a "right to be forgotten."  Making policy based on momentary trends is not advisable.

You're implicitly assuming a quick and orderly functioning of the job offer process.  What happens in reality is not that some positions go permanently unfilled, but rather companies wait a long time until finally they find a qualified candidate out of the huge stack of resumes.

I'm assuming that markets work as markets.  What happens in reality is that companies sometimes wait a long time to fill positions, and sometimes don't.  In either case, they will change their screening process to match the market.  No single screening criteria changes that reality by more than the noise in the system.  A "right to be forgotten" would not change that.