SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google's general counsel has signalled the company intends to fight, hard, against broad interpretations of the European Union's right to be forgotten.
Kent Walker, the company's general counsel and senior veep, put his name to a strongly-worded post on Wednesday, US time. Titled "Defending access to lawful information at Europe's highest court", the post argued that forthcoming cases in the European Court of Justice "represent a serious assault on the public's right to access lawful information."
Walker wrote that French courts' request for a European Court of Justice ruling on personal data collection effectively seeks a regime under which "all mentions of criminality or political affiliation should automatically be purged from search results, without any consideration of public interest."
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday November 17 2017, @06:02PM (4 children)
If Criminal records are not public then they will not be in google's search results.
If something was published in digital form then everything you've stated is a lie. Records are public. Memory is not illegal. If even ONLY the state remembers there is no such thing as the right to be forgotten.
When the serial rapist shows up to take your 14 year old daughter for a trip ti the Mall, I suspect all this nonsense about forgetting goes out the window.
As for levels of criminality, How would you know? Its an easy claim to make, when no records are public.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday November 17 2017, @10:35PM (3 children)
> When the serial rapist shows up to take your 14 year old daughter for a trip ti the Mall, I suspect all this nonsense about forgetting goes out the window.
Think Of The Children (TM), from Frojack ? Wow...
The serial rapist is either in jail, in treatment, or deemed rehabilitated. If a simple Google search allows people to find his past and deny him a job, you've created an outcast who cannot reintegrate society and is more likely to commit crimes again (the serial rapist is the worst possible example, because they have impulses to fail, if they're out before they're too old and have ED).
GP's point was that your "right to know" is an infringement on a suspect or criminal's right to live a normal life after complying with the punishment inflicted on them.
It also hits random people with the same name/age as those criminals, or even worse suspects. You can get your job prospects ruined because a random guy you'll never meet was accused of a heinous crime.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @10:54PM (2 children)
Except that "in treatment" is a canard and "rehabilitated" is s statistically non-existent condition when it comes to sex offenders.
Any clinical psychologist will tell you that sex offenders have a recidivism rate approaching 100%.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 17 2017, @11:01PM
Considering that the definition of "sex offender" can refer to anything from someone who raped a 5 year old to an 18 year old who banged his/her 15 year old lover, I would say that's quite a meaningless term.
Citation needed. I'm only finding numbers in studies ranging from 11%-30%. It depends on how it's measured (arrests, convictions, mere accusations, etc.). But nowhere near 100%, at any rate.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 17 2017, @11:01PM
> Any clinical psychologist will tell you that sex offenders have a recidivism rate approaching 100%.
That's not even true in the US, where only rich people get "treatment" rather than being thrown in for-profit jail.
The primary reason why it's not true, is that many people are branded "sex offenders" for stupid reasons, and will neveer commit any real, let over repeat, offense.
That's even less true in countries that have a humane approach to rehabilitation (though I'll grant you that sex offenses are probably the hardest, with petty gang crimes, to pull people away from).
What's a "clinical psychologist" ?
So, really, [citation needed] !