Posts by standardraise 10 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Mar 2018
Solid decision - it seems from the ruling that the second guy who did not succeed was clearly continuing on in his illicit practices.
Glad the judge has realized the importance of the right to be forgotten and that Google has accepted the ruling. Perhaps we can have society move forward and we can stop the incessant stalking of people online and produce more meaningful contributors to society.
The problem with this is that Google is effectively dealing with legal principles by not using legal principles. Of course, using lawyers may end up being costly but if an individual has to use a lawyer to make a right to be forgotten claim or if an individual is referring to a matter reflected by right to be forgotten (such as an old article), then it is somewhat incumbent on google to take due care in handling of these requests.
It sounds like google's 'system' is pretty much random at best.
The fundamental difference is that google does not let you move on. These links probably rank very highly in a person's google search which leads a disproportionate representation of that person. The idea of rehabilitation of offenders and the right to be forgotten is that individuals are unable to move on with their lives in a sensible way. This is not about freedom of information but rather the disproportionate effect of the google search and the laws that encourage people to move on.
Freedom is speech is not relevant because speech is not being curbed - this is about rehabilitation - which we already legislate for so that people can positively contribute to society.
Broadly agree - it makes sense for Google to take down anything related to spent convictions. The right to be forgotten and Rehabilitation of Offenders act are good ones and if something is clearly outdated and a person has paid their debt to society, they should be allowed a chance to contribute once again. Rehabilitation is generally a good idea as everyone makes mistakes - this is certainly the case when it is a spent conviction.
With regards to the interviews after the fact - you probably need to put yourself in that man's shoes. He has been branded for life because of a spent conviction and is trying to move on - he is probably distressed and some slimy PR company told him to do an interview. He was probably desperate but the point is he should be able to move on with his life.
Google should not be able to hang a noose around your neck because of a mistake you made and because it has a click-bait search engine that encourages people to stalk other people online. That is why we have Rehabilitation of offenders and the Right to be forgotten legislation already in place
The question is proportion - have you ever made a mistake? We all make mistakes but current legislation allows people to be rehabilitated otherwise we just drag down society.
Note, that in the case of a regulated profession, an individual would still have to declare this on an application form - and that includes any financial related jobs. However, it is not proportionate to brand someone a lifelong heathen because they made a mistake 15 years ago and because we are all addicted to stalking people on a click-bait search engine like google.
YOU do not really need to know anything about a person's history if you are not employing them. However, if you are interested in voyeuristic stalking then of course we should let google do whatever it wants. I think though our laws are designed to help people rehabilitate and once again meaningfully contribute to society - if they have paid their debt to society and their convictions are spent, why not let them move on?
Should we just then ignore existing laws? Are you against the Rehabilitation of Offenders act? Or the Right to be forgotten? Because these two laws allow people to move on, you would then argue the UK has been operating as North Korean regime for the past 40 years.
Our existing laws are in place for people to be able to move on from their lives after a mistake and be able to contribute to society. It is a good law because people do make mistakes.
However, google is preventing this process because it is a click-bait search engine and brands people negatively for life. It seems silly that a search engine have such sweeping power over private citizens.
We need to ask ourselves if endlessly stalking people and their history is the way we want to have our society grow and prosper.
The laws are in place for good reason - google has circumvented this and should follow our laws like everyone else.
That is absurd. We have a rehabilitation of offenders act which allows people to be rehabilitated. That means they do not have to disclose a mistake they made in the past.
This ruling would not release anything from history - you can still find it in the newspaper but it means that it is not front and centre every second and brands you for life. We already have laws that discourage this - such as the right to be forgotten and rehabilitation of offenders act.
This is hardly a free speech argument and google are hardly journalists. Stop with the straw man argument.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
