6 ms·
> What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all. That sounds like it's still something though. If someone gets fal
by Vinnl 7y ago
> What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all.
That sounds like it's still something though. If someone gets falsely accused of e.g. being a pedophile, and their prospective employer does not run into that information when researching them during the interview process, that seems like it achieves one of the goals people had in mind with this legislation.
- bilbo0s 7y agoBut the employer would, because the firm they use to do background checks will use an IP in the States to do the search.
- AstralStorm 7y agoWell if the employer is in the EU, they won't. So it's a win for EU, they get a potentially skilled employee. USA privacy laws are bad enough you can get sicced by a private investigator most of the time with no questions asked, no repercussions.
- brokenkebab 7y ago>Well if the employer is in the EU, they won't. They would, of course. Unless, someone's planning to build a whole Chinese-style censorship state, it's not possible to disallow to obtain information through VPN.
- Vespasian 7y agoI think the assumption is that the employer wouldn't do a background check in most cases (education etc. is an exception). I've never encountered one in Germany and we certainly don't do them with potential applicants at my place of employment. (No idea whether this is because of a law or for different reasons)
- brokenkebab 7y agoSo employing company either does, or does not do background checks. And if it does it works irrespective of RtBF law.
- Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 7y agoNo 'background checks' by private investigators in Germany. Some employers ask for a police certificate of conduct. There's a law saying which kind of convictions are listed there (nothing below a certain amount of days) and how long (to allow re-socialization).
- CodesInChaos 7y agoPreventing the search may be hard. But I don't see a problem with disallowing hiring discrimination based on such information (which is likely already the case).
- brokenkebab 7y ago>That sounds like it's still something though Sure, but nothing to celebrate: it puts average Joe in even more disadvantaged position compared to organized entities (corporations, and gov't agencies) when searching, while still won't save anyone from professional info gathering. E.g. all headhunting companies certainly will use VPNs, or similar technologies when compiling data.
- inlined 7y agoWouldn’t this be a systematic violation of the candidate’s right to be forgotten? It seems like this is the now-missing part of the puzzle: other countries still have sovereignty over their data but explicitly using a vpn to access legally protected pii should be itself a violation.
- brokenkebab 7y agoI don't think so. The law doesn't oblige me to abstain from searching information (IANAL), and it really must not, because it won't be technically enforceable unless you are willing to go to the space of totalitarian state solutions, and overall decrease of rights people enjoy just to expand one particular (and not particularly well tested) legal concept. I think it worth keeping in mind that attaching word "right" to some legal novelty doesn't necessary means it is something sacred, and even just good. We always have to assess cost/benefits balance, and not just declared intentions when looking at laws. RtBF conflicts with rights regarding searching facts/data which everybody needs to make informed decisions. Therefore it cannot be pushed farther without rather unpleasant consequences.
- BurningFrog 7y agoDoesn't it equally help actual pedophiles have their actions forgotten?
- skrebbel 7y agoSo long as they're not convicted, yes, and that's a good thing.
- simias 7y agoIf you consider that somebody who has accomplished his sentence paid their debt to society it doesn't really matter. Either the person is still in prison (and they have bigger problems than worrying about Google search results) or they have left prison and society deemed that they deserved a second chance, in which case the right to be forgotten actually works as intended. I realize that for these types of heinous crimes not everybody will agree with that but on the other hand letting these people free but living as pariahs shunned by the rest of society doesn't seem like a good solution (especially if we want to prevent them from acting on their impulses again).
- iamstupidsimple 7y agoSome crimes I can forgive, this I cannot. And therin lies the root of the problem. I do not want crimes that are deemed acceptable to be forgotten to be delegated to private corporations.
- true_religion 7y agoIn the specific case you mention, sex offender registries are administered by the government. Anyone that society deems to still be a risk is still on the list, regardless of the right to be forgotten removing newspaper entries about them.
- simias 7y ago>I do not want crimes that are deemed acceptable to be forgotten to be delegated to private corporations. But that's effectively the opposite of that. It's the government that mandates that private corporations implement the "right to be forgotten", regardless of the reason. The corporation has no say on the matter. On the other hand if you do not have something like that then you live it up to private entities to effectively implement vigilante justice by listing supposed pedophiles forever on their websites for instance. If you really think that people who commit pedophilia and other heinous crimes are forever unfit to live in society you should get your government to enact laws that make sure they're never released without supervision for instance. I mean unless you're a proponent of vigilante justice, but then you are effectively delegating justice to private entities, corporations or otherwise.