3 ms·

My wife has the issue that she was the victim of a crime, and the news reported her in detail as the perp was underage and they couldn't publish his name. The

by buro9 10y ago

My wife has the issue that she was the victim of a crime, and the news reported her in detail as the perp was underage and they couldn't publish his name. The result, my wife has had work colleagues ask about it, and one implied that she may have done something wrong to invite trouble. The victims and innocent in an incident can be affected by reportage too. We're European, and she tried to exercise the Right to be Forgotten, but Google haven't responded and it remains there when her name is searched. Her career may be being impacted, by having been a victim of a crime. This occurred 5 years ago, and is still mentioned from time to time.

asbestas 10y ago
This makes me so angry. Your poor wife! We have laws to protect the identity of victims in many cases in the USA for this very reason. We really need to draw a firm line about this "blame the victim" behavior. I haven't experienced it in any grave crime, but I had my bicycle stolen and instantly had to deal with a litany of people saying I shouldn't have locked it with a cable lock (I wasn't even using a cable lock), I shouldn't have put it where thieves could see it, etc. We all know it's 1000x worse for other crimes, like sex crimes. Victim blaming is comforting because it saves the blamers from the knowledge that life deals random blows and it could happen to anyone, including them. They'd much rather think that they are smart and safe, and that the victim did something wrong.
AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
Things happen. You don't get to modify history to suit you.
RIMR 10y ago
So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information, and not looking at shitty employers who think that this level of research on their employees or potential hires is appropriate? I think "The right to be forgotten" is a ridiculous "right". You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about. Perhaps make laws that prohibit employers from using news stories older than 5 years old against you during the hiring process, with exceptions for certain things. For example, a bank should be able to refuse to hire someone who was convicted of financial fraud 10 years ago, but perhaps shouldn't be able to refuse to hire someone because they got a DUI 10 years ago... The difference would be if someone intentionally keeps republishing dirt about you with the intent to harass, in which case libel/slander torts could be used to address non-factual information, and harassment torts could be used address irrelevant/dated factual information. Scrubbing the internet of factual information to protect people's feelings is a very concerning form of censorship. It's obviously abusable and actively being abused, so companies like Google aren't even going to try to comply.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about. Libel and slander would like to have a word with your opinion. > Scrubbing the internet of factual information to protect people's feelings is a very concerning form of censorship. No, its not. People have rights.
- ythl 10y ago
  > So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information Europe likes to try and bully Google; it makes them feel better about their distinct lack of web tech

by buro9 10y ago

asbestas 10y ago

This makes me so angry. Your poor wife! We have laws to protect the identity of victims in many cases in the USA for this very reason. We really need to draw a firm line about this "blame the victim" behavior. I haven't experienced it in any grave crime, but I had my bicycle stolen and instantly had to deal with a litany of people saying I shouldn't have locked it with a cable lock (I wasn't even using a cable lock), I shouldn't have put it where thieves could see it, etc. We all know it's 1000x worse for other crimes, like sex crimes. Victim blaming is comforting because it saves the blamers from the knowledge that life deals random blows and it could happen to anyone, including them. They'd much rather think that they are smart and safe, and that the victim did something wrong.

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago

Things happen. You don't get to modify history to suit you.

RIMR 10y ago

So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information, and not looking at shitty employers who think that this level of research on their employees or potential hires is appropriate? I think "The right to be forgotten" is a ridiculous "right". You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about. Perhaps make laws that prohibit employers from using news stories older than 5 years old against you during the hiring process, with exceptions for certain things. For example, a bank should be able to refuse to hire someone who was convicted of financial fraud 10 years ago, but perhaps shouldn't be able to refuse to hire someone because they got a DUI 10 years ago... The difference would be if someone intentionally keeps republishing dirt about you with the intent to harass, in which case libel/slander torts could be used to address non-factual information, and harassment torts could be used address irrelevant/dated factual information. Scrubbing the internet of factual information to protect people's feelings is a very concerning form of censorship. It's obviously abusable and actively being abused, so companies like Google aren't even going to try to comply.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> You don't have the right to dictate what other people know and talk about. Libel and slander would like to have a word with your opinion. > Scrubbing the internet of factual information to protect people's feelings is a very concerning form of censorship. No, its not. People have rights.
ythl 10y ago
> So why are we looking at Google to scrub the record of factual information Europe likes to try and bully Google; it makes them feel better about their distinct lack of web tech