4 ms·

> matter of legitimate public interest You and I will no doubt have different opinions on what is a "matter of public interest". If someone is embroiled in a s

> matter of legitimate public interest You and I will no doubt have different opinions on what is a "matter of public interest". If someone is embroiled in a scandal, they will consider that they are "over it" and that "the past is the past", while I would very much like to know about it if I'm considering hiring them. It has to be a case-by-case process. Period. Anything else is either not going far enough, or ripe for abuse.

John_KZ 9y ago
This. This protection law is a double-edged sword. A decent solution would be to prevent things like judicial documents and government reports from appearing in search engines, and instead make them all available in a different form, which requires some personal effort. Say a custom website or on a request basis. This way you can make sure that if a journalist is researching a corrupt politician, a corporate manager or his seemingly dangerous neighbor that keeps making threats, he can get his information, but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. This way your employer can also only look up the details of only 1-2 people, not screen all applicants based on their past convictions. News articles should be removed only after a court order that confirms what is said is defaming and untrue. Most people don't get news articles written about them, and if they're correct they can get their legal fees back. Right now the system is extremely opaque and it's not entirely clear if it's regular people using it or just scammers.
- curt15 9y ago
  >but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. But any inconvenience is a business opportunity unless you simply outlaw certain types of information-retrieval businesses.
- ghaff 9y ago
  Yo your first point (public records): Historically that's more or less what we've done. A lot of things are public records, including things that many people might find surprising and personal, but in practice you had to track it down to some dusty town or county clerk's office that was only open occasional and unpredictable hours. But as a result of a lot of things being digitized you can pay some nominal fee and get a pretty thorough public record search on anyone. Moving into a neighborhood, check out your neighbors. Potential employees. Etc. Heck, a lot of it is free although the "deep web" search companies have moved more to a straight pay model. The problem is that I'm not sure how you reconcile "public record" and "must be really inconvenient to access" as a matter of statute. Public but may not be digitized? Public but you have to pay $10K to access it? Public but you need to get a court order for legitimate public right to know?
DanBC 9y ago
What makes you think it isn't case by case? Your point about what is or isn't public interest isn't particularly relevant, since in this case it's Google who makes the decision.

John_KZ 9y ago

This. This protection law is a double-edged sword. A decent solution would be to prevent things like judicial documents and government reports from appearing in search engines, and instead make them all available in a different form, which requires some personal effort. Say a custom website or on a request basis. This way you can make sure that if a journalist is researching a corrupt politician, a corporate manager or his seemingly dangerous neighbor that keeps making threats, he can get his information, but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. This way your employer can also only look up the details of only 1-2 people, not screen all applicants based on their past convictions. News articles should be removed only after a court order that confirms what is said is defaming and untrue. Most people don't get news articles written about them, and if they're correct they can get their legal fees back. Right now the system is extremely opaque and it's not entirely clear if it's regular people using it or just scammers.

curt15 9y ago
>but it will require a certain minimum of commitment. But any inconvenience is a business opportunity unless you simply outlaw certain types of information-retrieval businesses.
ghaff 9y ago
Yo your first point (public records): Historically that's more or less what we've done. A lot of things are public records, including things that many people might find surprising and personal, but in practice you had to track it down to some dusty town or county clerk's office that was only open occasional and unpredictable hours. But as a result of a lot of things being digitized you can pay some nominal fee and get a pretty thorough public record search on anyone. Moving into a neighborhood, check out your neighbors. Potential employees. Etc. Heck, a lot of it is free although the "deep web" search companies have moved more to a straight pay model. The problem is that I'm not sure how you reconcile "public record" and "must be really inconvenient to access" as a matter of statute. Public but may not be digitized? Public but you have to pay $10K to access it? Public but you need to get a court order for legitimate public right to know?

DanBC 9y ago

What makes you think it isn't case by case? Your point about what is or isn't public interest isn't particularly relevant, since in this case it's Google who makes the decision.