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

[DGuller]

I'm assuming that markets work as markets.

That's a dangerous assumption to make when you have informational asymmetry.

[Ideologue]

To add to what DG said, there's a feedback effect too: if you have a hard time getting work due to a criminal record, you stay unemployed longer (and this is actually borne out by data, btw).  Being unemployed also makes it harder to find a job.  It's very reverse-bootstrap.

[garbon]

It seems like the heart of the matter lies at why we have increasing rates of incarceration. What sorts of changes do we need to make to our laws and what sort of things do we need to do better to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place.

[Ideologue]

It seems like the heart of the matter lies at why we have increasing rates of incarceration. What sorts of changes do we need to make to our laws and what sort of things do we need to do better to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place.

On a national level, decriminalizing drug possession.  There's no really compelling reason to discourage people from their pot habit anyway.

[Valmy]

At least reduce it to a fine or something.  We blow way too much tax money locking up completely harmless people who are only committing victimless crimes.  At least have those people give us back money instead of costing us a crapload more.

[PRC]

Search results, and the order they are displayed in, are based on algorithms that crunch the data google bots have delivered back to google after crawling the internet.  Google can't enforce this ruling because they don't control the content on the internet.  The only option for them is to have an opt-out system where if a person discovers something they want removed from the internet then Google can remove the relevant page from appearing in their search results.  They can't remove the page in question itself because they don't control it.  So if the person wants that page out of sight, maybe they could get it off of search, but the controllers of the page itself may just give them back Josephus's answer: no.

[crazy canuck]

It seems like the heart of the matter lies at why we have increasing rates of incarceration. What sorts of changes do we need to make to our laws and what sort of things do we need to do better to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place.

have less dumb laws regarding drug enforcement.

[Barrister]

Search results, and the order they are displayed in, are based on algorithms that crunch the data google bots have delivered back to google after crawling the internet.  Google can't enforce this ruling because they don't control the content on the internet.  The only option for them is to have an opt-out system where if a person discovers something they want removed from the internet then Google can remove the relevant page from appearing in their search results.  They can't remove the page in question itself because they don't control it.  So if the person wants that page out of sight, maybe they could get it off of search, but the controllers of the page itself may just give them back Josephus's answer: no.

If an item isn't listed on a google search it might as well not exist.

So that's what proponents want - for various web pages to no longer show up on a google search.

[Valmy]

have less dumb laws regarding drug enforcement.

Yeah, well, we are working on it.

[garbon]

It seems like the heart of the matter lies at why we have increasing rates of incarceration. What sorts of changes do we need to make to our laws and what sort of things do we need to do better to discourage people from committing crimes in the first place.

On a national level, decriminalizing drug possession.  There's no really compelling reason to discourage people from their pot habit anyway.

I wasn't really asking the question. Just thinking that that's where the discussion needs to be and less on making sure we hide what people have served time for.

[alfred russel]

At least reduce it to a fine or something.  We blow way too much tax money locking up completely harmless people who are only committing victimless crimes.  At least have those people give us back money instead of costing us a crapload more.

I do not think that jail is the worst part of a conviction. If I had a choice between a felony conviction that no one would ever know about with 1 year in jail, or a felony conviction on my record but no other punishment, please send me to jail.

[MadImmortalMan]

Search results, and the order they are displayed in, are based on algorithms that crunch the data google bots have delivered back to google after crawling the internet.  Google can't enforce this ruling because they don't control the content on the internet.  The only option for them is to have an opt-out system where if a person discovers something they want removed from the internet then Google can remove the relevant page from appearing in their search results.  They can't remove the page in question itself because they don't control it.  So if the person wants that page out of sight, maybe they could get it off of search, but the controllers of the page itself may just give them back Josephus's answer: no.

That's the real problem.


Most companies could easily automate the compliance process by sunsetting all data after a period of years. But Google's whole purpose of existing is to find things. It makes running a search engine a bit of a hassle. On the other hand, it's good for Google's business because they are already entrenched and have the resources to comply.

[grumbler]

To add to what DG said, there's a feedback effect too: if you have a hard time getting work due to a criminal record, you stay unemployed longer (and this is actually borne out by data, btw).  Being unemployed also makes it harder to find a job.  It's very reverse-bootstrap.

That's true of any term of unemployment, not just unemployment due to criminal record.  It still doesn't justify a "right to be forgotten."

[grumbler]

I do not think that jail is the worst part of a conviction. If I had a choice between a felony conviction that no one would ever know about with 1 year in jail, or a felony conviction on my record but no other punishment, please send me to jail.

I support, without any qualifiers, your request to go to jail. 

[Capetan Mihali]

At least reduce it to a fine or something.  We blow way too much tax money locking up completely harmless people who are only committing victimless crimes.  At least have those people give us back money instead of costing us a crapload more.

I do not think that jail is the worst part of a conviction. If I had a choice between a felony conviction that no one would ever know about with 1 year in jail, or a felony conviction on my record but no other punishment, please send me to jail.

But then how do you explain the gap on your resume?  I guess "traveling" isn't too much of a lie.  Even though you only went to one place, riding manacled in a bus without windows.