3 ms·

I believe there should be a framework in place, but that it should be strict yet accessible. An easy example is someone that is arrested but not convicted of a

by Zikes 11y ago

I believe there should be a framework in place, but that it should be strict yet accessible. An easy example is someone that is arrested but not convicted of a crime. Arrests are public information, and very often people assume that only the guilty are arrested. Combine that with the regular practice of Googling new hires for every job and someone's life could easily be quite literally ruined.

runako 11y ago
If a community cares about this, it seems more appropriate to address this at the community level by not publishing arrest records. Far fewer thorny issues are at stake with that decision that there are in censoring data that has been public at some point.
- ghaff 11y ago
  Collectively, we've never really seriously dealt with information that was historically public but which historically also took considerable effort/interest to access--e.g. it was in a dusty file cabinet in the office of some town clerk who only worked for a few hours on Tuesday and Thursday. Furthermore, it took even more effort/interest/even money to link together such information with other information sources. While there are, in general, a lot of good reasons for transparency in society, there are probably good arguments for keeping certain types of information private now that they're so much easier to access.
kbenson 11y ago
One person's guilty looking circumstances are another person's innocent daily routine. Does the picture of the devout Jew carrying a ham qualify?
bko 11y ago
Criminal or civil? Should we scrub the internet of OJ Simpson? What about when a trial is taking place, can reporters report on it and then have to purge it from their servers immediately after acquittal? I just don't think it's practical. Even if you believe there is some theoretical framework that would not put undue hardships on all to comply and only be applicable to those causes in which we overwhelmingly agree upon, this isn't the framework that will be applied. The fact is I won't be involved in designing this framework and (presumably) neither will you. In fact, I will likely never even understand the framework. The people who will be involved will be the people with the most at stake and the most amount of money. They will know how the framework works and will be integral in designing it to benefit those same people. Classic regulatory capture. Intentions are not results.

by Zikes 11y ago

runako 11y ago

If a community cares about this, it seems more appropriate to address this at the community level by not publishing arrest records. Far fewer thorny issues are at stake with that decision that there are in censoring data that has been public at some point.

ghaff 11y ago
Collectively, we've never really seriously dealt with information that was historically public but which historically also took considerable effort/interest to access--e.g. it was in a dusty file cabinet in the office of some town clerk who only worked for a few hours on Tuesday and Thursday. Furthermore, it took even more effort/interest/even money to link together such information with other information sources. While there are, in general, a lot of good reasons for transparency in society, there are probably good arguments for keeping certain types of information private now that they're so much easier to access.

kbenson 11y ago

One person's guilty looking circumstances are another person's innocent daily routine. Does the picture of the devout Jew carrying a ham qualify?

bko 11y ago

Criminal or civil? Should we scrub the internet of OJ Simpson? What about when a trial is taking place, can reporters report on it and then have to purge it from their servers immediately after acquittal? I just don't think it's practical. Even if you believe there is some theoretical framework that would not put undue hardships on all to comply and only be applicable to those causes in which we overwhelmingly agree upon, this isn't the framework that will be applied. The fact is I won't be involved in designing this framework and (presumably) neither will you. In fact, I will likely never even understand the framework. The people who will be involved will be the people with the most at stake and the most amount of money. They will know how the framework works and will be integral in designing it to benefit those same people. Classic regulatory capture. Intentions are not results.