Don't see how this will work. :mellow:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/13/right-to-be-forgotten-ruling-quagmire-google
Quote
'Right to be forgotten' ruling creates a quagmire for Google et al
EU court's decision will sound good to those who want old photos and articles deleted, but the reality will be more complex
James Ball
theguardian.com, Tuesday 13 May 2014 11.51 BST
Google offices
Deciding privacy issues on a case-by-case basis will require huge teams of compliance staff in every tech company. Photograph: Christian Hartmann/Reuters
It's a rare person who doesn't have something about themselves they would like taken off the internet, whether it's trivial (that picture from the office party) or grave (that news article about those people you killed).
So on the face of it, a new ruling from the EU's court of justice upholding the "right to be forgotten" looks like good news. As the debate around privacy, identity, and ephemerality has raged around the Snowden disclosures for the past year, the idea of putting the genie back in the bottle, and making old photos, articles and notes hard to find once more, will be for many an appealing one.
But behind the lustre lies a much more difficult situation. The EU court's ruling relates to a long-running dispute around a 1998 newspaper article relating to the repossession of a Spanish man's home. The court ruled that the newspaper had acted in the public interest in reporting the news, but that Google's offering a link to the article in search results represented an infringement of his privacy – and so the search giant should delete the result.
The court didn't establish an absolute right to vanish: "a fair balance" should be sought between the public's right to access given information and the "data subject's" right to privacy and data protection.
This creates a real quagmire for any company offering up information online: after how long does a bankruptcy ruling become something that should be private? Is that different if the subject is a celebrity or a politician? What if they offered the information voluntarily (or sold their story) in the first place? How about drug use, or prostitution, or murder? What if a person stands for public office a few years after having their search records scrubbed?
If nothing else, deciding such issues on a case-by-case basis will require huge teams of compliance staff in every tech company (and probably most media companies), and will tie up courts on the limits of each provision for years to come.
This is before we even get close to the trickier issues. Google was found to be subject to the EU court's decision because it has an established operation in Spain, within the union. This was despite the data being held and search results processed elsewhere. Most major tech giants are based in the US – which thanks to the first amendment, is very unlikely to require companies to restrict search results (ie what they can "publish") due to overseas privacy requirements.
The results could become exceedingly strange: will people searching from the US be able to see the "private" data of EU citizens, while natives of those countries cannot? Or will companies with no EU footprint be able to serve up results, but those with sales offices in EU countries be required to censor them?
The result is either an eerie parallel with China's domestic censorship of search results, or a huge incentive for tech investment to get the hell out of Europe. Neither, presumably, is a remotely desirable result.
Privacy is rightly recognised as an important right. The permanence of the internet is a concern to many, especially given the level of surveillance and intrusion on the network. In time, new social norms will help: once everyone's teenage follies – including the hiring manager's – are accessible, it becomes much harder to hold them against potential hirees.
In the meantime, social networks and activity are shifting from the permanent – Facebook – to the transient – Snapchat – showing that technology and culture are already starting to fix the permanence problem. That's a much better way: privacy is great, but it needs baking in from the start. Trying to clumsily reverse-engineer it into the system through law is an act of hubris.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 13, 2014, 07:17:57 AM
Don't see how this will work. :mellow:
The Europeans with the money and/or power to push it through will be protected from having their shit on the Internet, while the common man will not. So politicians and businessmen with things to hide will benefit and freedom of speech will suffer.
That's Europe for you in a nutshell I guess.
What counts as irrelevant and outdated is the question for ne. I can see it doing some good with people who were in minor trouble of some sort and made the papers.... But isn't it right this be public record?
I thought Google already had an opt-out policy:
http://www.theonion.com/video/google-opt-out-feature-lets-users-protect-privacy,14358/
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.
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
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.
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.
If there is a "right to forget" does that extend to libraries as well?
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
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.
Good on you Josephus. There is so much misinformation available on the net I think that archives like those provided by newspapers are very valuable resources.
Quote from: Tyr on May 13, 2014, 10:50:11 AM
What counts as irrelevant and outdated is the question for ne.
As I said, it is a neat flexible little ruling. If you have the pull, you can bend it your way. But it is not precise enough to be valid across the board.
Quote from: Tyr on May 13, 2014, 10:50:11 AM
What counts as irrelevant and outdated is the question for ne. I can see it doing some good with people who were in minor trouble of some sort and made the papers.... But isn't it right this be public record?
Now in the EU it may be different, but in the US criminal records are searchable and available to the public at either no charge (e.g., you can literally look my ass up on the Internet if you know the counties I've lived in, or brute force it with a search of each county in SC) or for a minor cost (pay $25 to SLED and you can get a full rap sheet, no fuss, no muss). The only exceptions are juvenile crimes, expungments, and iirc there's a ridiculously long time limit, like ten years, till they drop off of SLED's radar, but you can still look 'em up in the county.
There was a bill last year in the SC legislature to sharply limit access, but it got shot down.
In Spain your criminal record is secret and will be purged in time. Only certain employers can (and should) ask you to provide it (IIRC mostly about regulated professions).
So you do have a right to be forgotten.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 13, 2014, 12:03:08 PM
In Spain your criminal record is secret and will be purged in time. Only certain employers can (and should) ask you to provide it (IIRC mostly about regulated professions).
So you do have a right to be forgotten.
So in Spain, you not only have the right to a secret criminal record (an interesting concept in and of itself; if someone is murdered, the family will never know who killed their loved one?) and automatic expungement of old offenses, but a right to be forgotten as well? Where is this right articulated? How many years until, say, a bank loan is forgotten?
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.
I assume Iorm doesn't mean that Spain lacks public trials or anything like that, but that the record after conviction isn't easily searchable.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
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?
QuoteI assume Iorm doesn't mean that Spain lacks public trials or anything like that, but that the record after conviction isn't easily searchable.
That would be different from a secret criminal record. If a criminal record is secret, no one except those with the requisite need to know can even know about it.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
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.
QuoteThat would be different from a secret criminal record. If a criminal record is secret, no one except those with the requisite need to know can even know about it.
I'm sure Spain's courts of the star chamber are packed.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
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.
QuoteI'm sure Spain's courts of the star chamber are packed.
Okay? :huh:
As much as I'd like most of my Internet past to be stricken from the record, this is a terrible idea.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 12:29:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 12:17:39 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2014, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Quote from: mongers on May 13, 2014, 05:38:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on May 13, 2014, 05:33:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2014, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2014, 05:39:58 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 13, 2014, 05:38:36 PM
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. :( :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2014, 11:09:39 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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. :cry:
I can't help it that your state is ass backwards.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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?
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2014, 06:19:20 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 13, 2014, 09:05:32 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2014, 09:02:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 13, 2014, 06:10:12 PM
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.
I wish we could exercise the right for Timmay to be forgotten.
Then you would deny yourself the pleasure of mocking him. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2014, 09:16:19 PM
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?
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 06:35:16 AM
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.
QuoteHiring 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.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2014, 08:49:17 AM
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!
Giggity.
Cal just splooged.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 09:22:36 AM
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.
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2014, 10:04:08 AM
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.
QuoteYou'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.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 10:09:21 AM
I'm assuming that markets work as markets.
That's a dangerous assumption to make when you have informational asymmetry.
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:05:09 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:05:09 PM
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.
Quote from: PRC on May 14, 2014, 12:25:58 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 12:26:20 PM
have less dumb laws regarding drug enforcement.
Yeah, well, we are working on it.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 12:19:19 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 12:05:09 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 12:24:40 PM
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.
Quote from: PRC on May 14, 2014, 12:25:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 11:58:37 AM
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."
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2014, 12:56:14 PM
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. :hug:
Quote from: alfred russel on May 14, 2014, 12:56:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 12:24:40 PM
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.
I visited scenic rural Colorado.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 14, 2014, 05:21:31 PM
I visited scenic rural Colorado.
ADX Florence? A lot of famous people have been traveling there. :)
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2014, 08:49:17 AM
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.
If it's 600 different companies, all 600 of them aren't going to have a policy of automatically eliminating from consideration any applicant with a criminal record.
Only 598.
One thing about this ongoing story- the Spanish guy who started it all.... He was upset about his name being linked to a few articles from years back about his financial troubles... But every single story about this issue seems to be repeating his name and about his problems. :pinch:
The EU's demands grow even crazier
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/eu-regulators-to-google-right-to-forget-needs-to-go-worldwide/
QuoteEU regulators to Google: "Right to forget" needs to go worldwide
Regulators are hammering out the fine art of being forgotten—at home and abroad.
by Joe Mullin - July 25 2014, 2:28am KST
In May, the European Union's highest court ordered Google to grant EU citizens a "right to be forgotten" that would allow them to remove "inadequate" or "irrelevant" links. Google complied, providing a new form that was used thousands of times—mostly by those seeking to erase links related to accusations of fraud and other serious crimes.
But Google only removed links on its European sites, like google.co.uk. Users in Europe, or anywhere else, can still get "full" search results by visiting the US version of the site at google.com.
That decision is now under fire by EU regulators and experts, who have said the limitation "effectively defeats the purpose of the ruling," according to a Reuters report. EU authorities are scheduled to meet with Google today, as well as representatives from Yahoo and Microsoft, to discuss the issue.
The text of the European Court of Justice's ruling doesn't say anything about how to handle requests across varying national sites. If a link meets the criteria, the court ruling simply states that "the links and information in the list of results must be erased." It doesn't detail how and where such deletions should occur.
The idea of stretching the ruling to apply worldwide is a worst-case scenario not just for Google but for critics of the law, who have called it a form of censorship.
"In a sign of the importance Google is attaching to the privacy debate in Europe, it has recruited a panel of high profile academics, policymakers, and civil society experts to advise it on how to implement the ruling as it ploughs through the over 70,000 requests it has received so far," notes Reuters.
Some users who had their requests denied by Google are appealing to state privacy authorities to force Google to remove their links. The British government has received 23 such complaints so far, while French and Italian privacy authorities have received a handful each.
Microsoft just started taking "right to be forgotten" requests for its Bing search engine last week. It uses a four-part Web form that asks for more information than Google's form.
So far this ruling had proved an annoyance with some results on searches appearing saying they have been removed. They're always irrelevant. But how do I know this is so? The very thing I'm looking for could be being hidden for all I know. Using American google and thus missing out on localized searches is he only solution
Quote from: Tyr on July 27, 2014, 02:50:50 AM
So far this ruling had proved an annoyance with some results on searches appearing saying they have been removed. They're always irrelevant. But how do I know this is so? The very thing in looking for could be being hidden for all I know. Using American google and thus missing out on localized searches is he only solution
Doesn't look like they're keen on that either :mellow:
QuoteEU watchdog in new bid to stop publishers side-stepping 'right to be forgetten' orders
Cleland Thom
28 November 2014
EU privacy regulators are attempting to stop the media from circumventing people's "right to be forgotten" requests.
Some media websites publish fresh stories about the "take-downs" when Google removes links to copy in their archives.
They rely on Google telling them the links have been removed.
But EU data protection watchdogs have said search engines should not inform webmasters about their decisions.
In a statement released on Wednesday, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party said: "Search engines should not as a general practice inform the webmasters of the pages affected by removals of the fact that some web pages cannot be acceded from the search engine in response to a specific name-based query.
"There is no legal basis for such routine communication under EU data protection law."
The working party also wants "right to be forgotten" decisions to be applied worldwide.
At the moment, they only apply to Google's European search engines, so users can still find the content by searching Google.com
The report said: "Delisting decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects' rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented.
"In practice, this means that... delisting should also be effective on all relevant .com domains."
Google has received more than 170,000 requests to remove links to webpages, including news articles, from its search results since the European Courts right to be forgotten ruling in May.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2014, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2014, 11:03:54 AM
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.
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.
If there is a "right to forget" does that extend to libraries as well?
All of this is new - same goes with the right to privacy - never before we were so open to invigilation.
There is a clear need for new rules as conditions have changed. It is to be seen how this will play out and what will be considered proportional and necessary. I just resent ignorant "this is crazy" or "that will never work" remarks from the Languish resident ignorami.
:lol:
Oh Mart.