5 ms·

Discriminating on the basis of spent convictions is illegal in the UK (where this ruling took place).

danShumway 9y ago
Oh cool, I didn't know that. Thanks for commenting. Is there something I'm missing about Right to be Forgotten then? Why is this needed if it's already illegal to discriminate against someone over minor crimes or scandals? Does the law not have much teeth or something?
- kuschku 9y ago
  You don’t always know why companies discriminate against a potential employee. They don’t just tell you why they refused to hire someone. So, employers don’t get access to criminal records, and generally, newspapers can’t republish information about people in a way that would harm their life today. Even criminals whose cases were public when they went into jail have a right to a normal life after they’ve finished their sentence – sometimes this is included with a change of name, but ideally, it’d be better if we, as society, would just forgive, or forget.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Tell that to a celeb that the press decides to monster - Cliff Richards case vs the BBC is a current example.
- fastball 9y ago
  Right to be forgotten can apply to anything where a private business has my data. Case-in-point: Facebook. Most people don't believe that when you ask a company like Facebook or Google to delete your account, they actually delete your data. Sure, you no longer have access to it, definitely, but most people seem to assume that it's not entirely gone. RTBF ensures that companies whom you provided information to delete this information if asked to politely.
  - ivanhoe 9y ago
    Or if I'm, say, a convicted con artist I can hide that fact from my future victims, making any future crimes significantly easier...
    - fastball 9y ago
      I'm not trying to argue the respective pros/cons. OP just asked for an example of when RTBF would be a good thing excluding in the case of criminals.
    - kafquaesque 9y ago
      Downvote
    - falcolas 9y ago
      Or if I'm, say, a lesbian activist I can request the doxxing of my activities be hidden, so that I may live without persecution. Or I'm a, 18 year old caught in a Romeo & Juliet, with my face plastered across Facebook as a "sex offender", but it's later overturned (or, as I call it, sanity prevailed). Should I have a right to be forgotten? Or... the list of possibilities continues.
    - kenbaylor 9y ago
      This is a big point of confusion. A background check will check the court records, where your convictions will still be listed (unless protected from disclosure e.g. California background checks generally don't show convictions > 7 years https://www.goodhire.com/california/background-checks https://www.goodhire.com/california/background-checks). A real con artist can just fake someone's ID, for them it's pretty trivial. The issue is less than 1% of convictions ever make it to the Internet, and those people currently will be stigmatized forever, unlike the other 99%, unless they have this mechanism. Google's plea was 'we will self police, but we won't tell you how. We will ignore court orders, because we choose to'. The court objected to that approach. If you are convicted of new crimes, no matter how long ago, then your sentence may be significantly increased as a repeat offender.
      - 9y ago
- lumisota 9y ago
  While it's generally an offence to disclose spent convictions, the press is still free to publish details about them. Right to be forgotten means that those looking for such articles are unlikely to find them.

Oh cool, I didn't know that. Thanks for commenting. Is there something I'm missing about Right to be Forgotten then? Why is this needed if it's already illegal to discriminate against someone over minor crimes or scandals? Does the law not have much teeth or something?

kuschku 9y ago
You don’t always know why companies discriminate against a potential employee. They don’t just tell you why they refused to hire someone. So, employers don’t get access to criminal records, and generally, newspapers can’t republish information about people in a way that would harm their life today. Even criminals whose cases were public when they went into jail have a right to a normal life after they’ve finished their sentence – sometimes this is included with a change of name, but ideally, it’d be better if we, as society, would just forgive, or forget.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Tell that to a celeb that the press decides to monster - Cliff Richards case vs the BBC is a current example.
fastball 9y ago
Right to be forgotten can apply to anything where a private business has my data. Case-in-point: Facebook. Most people don't believe that when you ask a company like Facebook or Google to delete your account, they actually delete your data. Sure, you no longer have access to it, definitely, but most people seem to assume that it's not entirely gone. RTBF ensures that companies whom you provided information to delete this information if asked to politely.
- ivanhoe 9y ago
  Or if I'm, say, a convicted con artist I can hide that fact from my future victims, making any future crimes significantly easier...
  - fastball 9y ago
    I'm not trying to argue the respective pros/cons. OP just asked for an example of when RTBF would be a good thing excluding in the case of criminals.
  - kafquaesque 9y ago
    Downvote
  - falcolas 9y ago
    Or if I'm, say, a lesbian activist I can request the doxxing of my activities be hidden, so that I may live without persecution. Or I'm a, 18 year old caught in a Romeo & Juliet, with my face plastered across Facebook as a "sex offender", but it's later overturned (or, as I call it, sanity prevailed). Should I have a right to be forgotten? Or... the list of possibilities continues.
  - kenbaylor 9y ago
    This is a big point of confusion. A background check will check the court records, where your convictions will still be listed (unless protected from disclosure e.g. California background checks generally don't show convictions > 7 years https://www.goodhire.com/california/background-checks https://www.goodhire.com/california/background-checks). A real con artist can just fake someone's ID, for them it's pretty trivial. The issue is less than 1% of convictions ever make it to the Internet, and those people currently will be stigmatized forever, unlike the other 99%, unless they have this mechanism. Google's plea was 'we will self police, but we won't tell you how. We will ignore court orders, because we choose to'. The court objected to that approach. If you are convicted of new crimes, no matter how long ago, then your sentence may be significantly increased as a repeat offender.
    - 9y ago
lumisota 9y ago
While it's generally an offence to disclose spent convictions, the press is still free to publish details about them. Right to be forgotten means that those looking for such articles are unlikely to find them.