3 ms·

I think the "right to be forgotten" should be replaced with the "right to not have old information considered", which is a much better compromise between the pu

by hx87 10y ago

I think the "right to be forgotten" should be replaced with the "right to not have old information considered", which is a much better compromise between the public interest and privacy. In your example, a person false accused of a crime wouldn't have the record expunged, but the record would be heavily tagged with notices that it was a false accusation, and it would be illegal to use that information in considering him for a job and it would be a severe breach of social norms to use that information turn him down for a relationship.

a_humean 10y ago
That's interesting and would help a bit, but its probably not going to help the man falsely accused of murder very much. In the relationship case its basically pretty much impossible to legislate norms of behaviour in any reasonable period of time (it would be multi-generational if possible at all). For the job applications we all know hiring managers discriminate even when its against the law due to either their explicit or implicit biases. They can find very reasonable and legal explanations for rejection that they probably even sincerely believe themselves.
- hx87 10y ago
  I'm taking the long view of things, so I'm less interested in one particular man falsely accused of murder than falsely accused people in general. Multiple generations is indeed a reasonable period of time. Sure, social norms might change slowly, but that slow change is often the only way to fix the problem without breaking something else to an unacceptable extent. That being said, there is role for legislation--for example, there is a lot of research into implicit and explicit biases in human minds, and there could be more public funding on how to reverse these biases, and implement them as a standard part of the curriculum in public schools.
Analemma_ 10y ago
Considering old information, whether it's relevant or not, is something human psychology does automatically and inexorably. So when you talk about a "right to not have old information considered", you might as well speak of your right to jump off a cliff and soar through the air instead of hitting the ground. These European laws are doing their best to account for the unfair tendencies of human nature, while your counter-proposal isn't really an improvement over the situation we had before. > "... but the record would be heavily tagged with notices that it was a false accusation ..." There's been some literature lately about people trusting their doctors/lawyers/etc. more when that person reveals that they have a conflict of interest. A similar backfire effect could well occur here. > " ... it would be a severe breach of social norms to use that information turn him down for a relationship ..." Oh good. Approximately when can we expect the social norms to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?
- hx87 10y ago
  /Noticing/ old information is automatic, but assigning valence to it and having it influence a decision to a significant extent isn't. I might not be able to notice that a person is left-handed, but that doesn't mean I will favor or disfavor them because of it. > There's been some literature lately about people trusting their doctors/lawyers/etc. more when that person reveals that they have a conflict of interest. A similar backfire effect could well occur here. A file stating that an accusation was false isn't admitting doubts or uncertainty, though, and it's that admission that leads people to trust advisors more when they reveal conflicts of interest. That file is flatly and loudly stating that the accusation was false. > Oh good. Approximately when can we expect the social norms to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never? Oh good. Approximately when can we expect law to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?

by hx87 10y ago

a_humean 10y ago

That's interesting and would help a bit, but its probably not going to help the man falsely accused of murder very much. In the relationship case its basically pretty much impossible to legislate norms of behaviour in any reasonable period of time (it would be multi-generational if possible at all). For the job applications we all know hiring managers discriminate even when its against the law due to either their explicit or implicit biases. They can find very reasonable and legal explanations for rejection that they probably even sincerely believe themselves.

hx87 10y ago
I'm taking the long view of things, so I'm less interested in one particular man falsely accused of murder than falsely accused people in general. Multiple generations is indeed a reasonable period of time. Sure, social norms might change slowly, but that slow change is often the only way to fix the problem without breaking something else to an unacceptable extent. That being said, there is role for legislation--for example, there is a lot of research into implicit and explicit biases in human minds, and there could be more public funding on how to reverse these biases, and implement them as a standard part of the curriculum in public schools.

Analemma_ 10y ago

Considering old information, whether it's relevant or not, is something human psychology does automatically and inexorably. So when you talk about a "right to not have old information considered", you might as well speak of your right to jump off a cliff and soar through the air instead of hitting the ground. These European laws are doing their best to account for the unfair tendencies of human nature, while your counter-proposal isn't really an improvement over the situation we had before. > "... but the record would be heavily tagged with notices that it was a false accusation ..." There's been some literature lately about people trusting their doctors/lawyers/etc. more when that person reveals that they have a conflict of interest. A similar backfire effect could well occur here. > " ... it would be a severe breach of social norms to use that information turn him down for a relationship ..." Oh good. Approximately when can we expect the social norms to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?

hx87 10y ago
/Noticing/ old information is automatic, but assigning valence to it and having it influence a decision to a significant extent isn't. I might not be able to notice that a person is left-handed, but that doesn't mean I will favor or disfavor them because of it. > There's been some literature lately about people trusting their doctors/lawyers/etc. more when that person reveals that they have a conflict of interest. A similar backfire effect could well occur here. A file stating that an accusation was false isn't admitting doubts or uncertainty, though, and it's that admission that leads people to trust advisors more when they reveal conflicts of interest. That file is flatly and loudly stating that the accusation was false. > Oh good. Approximately when can we expect the social norms to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never? Oh good. Approximately when can we expect law to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?