3 ms·

I get to see the reports from a few UK newspapers for articles that have been de-indexed in line with European data protection laws and without fail every artic

I get to see the reports from a few UK newspapers for articles that have been de-indexed in line with European data protection laws and without fail every article mentions someone that's been up to some shady shit… From men the have beaten their partners, or been found guilty of rape to people who've been found guilty of fraud every deindex involves someone trying to hide something bad they've done

basisword 5y ago
>> every deindex involves someone trying to hide something bad they've done What do you expect? People aren't going to be asking for articles about their charity work to be de-indexed. If someone committed a crime, served their sentence, and is no longer required to report it to potential employers, it makes sense they would try to get it de-indexed or most employers would ignore them unfairly after a quick search for their name.
- AdrianB1 5y ago
  Unfairly? How is that unfair? In the old days of newspapers, one could not hide a newspaper article from manual search in the library. Digital indexing is just making search a lot easier, but it should not make it different as a proces, by hiding parts.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    Some would consider being haunted by one bad thing you did for your entire life to be unfair. People can change, but only if we as a society let then. A big reason for recidivism is that once people come out of prison, their job prospects are trash, so if they want to make a living, going back to crime is the best way. They went to trial, a punishment was selected and carried out, that should be the end (unless part of the punishment was being permanently labeled like with sex offenders, but we've seen how that can backfire). ANECDOTE ALERT: I'm vaguely familiar with a local case of an alcoholic abusive father who went to prison for a short time, then spent a few years in rehab/AA. He's a really sweet guy now, extremely ashamed of his past and doing everything he can to make things right (financially contributing to his family and working on repairing their relationships). He was a nobody alcoholic, so his name never appeared in any newspapers, but imagine if it had - he'd probably be broke, homeless and drinking again in no time. This is a pattern we often see with the "town drunks", who everybody knows as such and so any attempts they make to clean up are immediately met with distrust or even worse ridicule. So they never change.
    - AdrianB1 5y ago
      Yes, it can be considered unfair but life is not fair or unfair by itself, it's just life. As an employer I would like to know who I am hiring and their history, good or bad. I have absolutely no problem hiring an ex-convict, but I care what is the crime and what position would make it not eligible - for example I would hire a thief, but not as a warehouse manager. In fact, not knowing about a potential problem is a bigger problem than "being unfair". I believe in redemption, but not in "born again".
      - franga2000 5y ago
        > life is not fair or unfair by itself, it's just life Yes, which is why we have laws - to bring fairness to a system that is indifferent to it. And the ability to serve your time and then move on with your life is one of the ways. I completely understand your point of view and I'd be similarly careful with someone who just got out of prison. Here's the thing: you said you wouldn't hire "a thief" as a warehouse manager, but someone who went to prison for theft, did their time, got out and has been probably more law-abiding than the rest of us is not a thief - they were a thief. Again, caution makes sense for a recent offender, but after they do their time and don't do commit more crime for some time, it definitely becomes unfair to judge them for it. Unfortunately, most people don't see it this way, they only see a criminal, which is why employment is such a big problem for ex-cons (esp. in the US) and why I believe there should be a "right to be forgotten" at least after some time has passed. // And hell, I'd love a former thief as a warehouse manager - who better to spot other employees stealing stuff than someone who knows exactly how it's done :)
        AdrianB1 5y ago
        Right, but in the end it sounds like this: because some (or many) employers don't have a good judgement, we should simply hide the past to everyone. It sounds like a collective punishment to me. In the end, you cannot make the universe fair by enacting human laws. Paid or not, mistakes from the past exist even if you hide it under the carpet. Same as you need to learn from history, not to ignore it, this particular history should be available, not hidden.
  - trmonx 5y ago
    It should be different, internet is not an archive of old newspaper articles.
    - AdrianB1 5y ago
      It does not have to be that different, Internet is a lot more than an archive, but it includes that capability.
orf 5y ago
There are obviously counter cases where people have committed crimes many years ago, but a trivial search for their name brings the crimes up as the first result. This obviously makes it hard for them to move on. It’s an impossible line to draw concretely, but there is a distinction between branding someone for life over what may have been a one time mistake and keeping an accurate and accessible record of the news. The examples you used as examples are obviously pretty horrible and won’t draw sympathy, but there are obviously other crimes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bradly 5y ago
> every deindex involves someone trying to hide something bad they've done Maybe you are thinking of every deindex that you see articles written about? There was a fraudulent website listing my vacation rental as their own with their own number listed as the "owner's phone number" and everything. The entire site is vrbo listings with fake owners number. Every property had the same number. Do you know how hard it is to get a website taken down in the U.S.? Their hosting provider, GoDaddy, did nothing saying they don't deal in illegal matters and to contact the FBI. The FBI did nothing. The only thing that got the listing taken down was a DMCA request to GoDaddy on the photos and text as they were ripped direct ly from VRBO. In 48 hours my listing was removed. Site stayed up and my listing came back two more times. Each time I filed a DMCA with GoDaddy and the listing would be taken down. Even their BBB listing had multiple people calling it a scam. https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/cape-canaveral/profile/vacation-rentals/family-friendly-vacation-rentals-llc-0733-90699755 https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/cape-canaveral/profile/vacation-re... Excerpt from the letter from GoDaddy: If you have concerns regarding abuse issues (such as scams, etc) please submit a complaint using the form located at ABUSEFORM.COM. We are not able to assist you with abuse based complaints from the Intellectual Property Infringement Claims department. If you feel that illegal activity is taking place with regards to this website content, you'll want to contact law enforcement. GoDaddy is not a law enforcement agency and cannot perform an investigation of this nature. We will be happy to assist law enforcement if they contact us directly about an open investigation. Thank you. Kindest Regards, [REDACTED] Go Daddy
- youngtaff 5y ago
  > Maybe you are thinking of every deindex that you see articles written about? Nope, I'm thinking of the notifications I get in my inbox from Google when they deindex articles from a couple major UK newspapers

basisword 5y ago

>> every deindex involves someone trying to hide something bad they've done What do you expect? People aren't going to be asking for articles about their charity work to be de-indexed. If someone committed a crime, served their sentence, and is no longer required to report it to potential employers, it makes sense they would try to get it de-indexed or most employers would ignore them unfairly after a quick search for their name.

AdrianB1 5y ago
Unfairly? How is that unfair? In the old days of newspapers, one could not hide a newspaper article from manual search in the library. Digital indexing is just making search a lot easier, but it should not make it different as a proces, by hiding parts.
- franga2000 5y ago
  Some would consider being haunted by one bad thing you did for your entire life to be unfair. People can change, but only if we as a society let then. A big reason for recidivism is that once people come out of prison, their job prospects are trash, so if they want to make a living, going back to crime is the best way. They went to trial, a punishment was selected and carried out, that should be the end (unless part of the punishment was being permanently labeled like with sex offenders, but we've seen how that can backfire). ANECDOTE ALERT: I'm vaguely familiar with a local case of an alcoholic abusive father who went to prison for a short time, then spent a few years in rehab/AA. He's a really sweet guy now, extremely ashamed of his past and doing everything he can to make things right (financially contributing to his family and working on repairing their relationships). He was a nobody alcoholic, so his name never appeared in any newspapers, but imagine if it had - he'd probably be broke, homeless and drinking again in no time. This is a pattern we often see with the "town drunks", who everybody knows as such and so any attempts they make to clean up are immediately met with distrust or even worse ridicule. So they never change.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    Yes, it can be considered unfair but life is not fair or unfair by itself, it's just life. As an employer I would like to know who I am hiring and their history, good or bad. I have absolutely no problem hiring an ex-convict, but I care what is the crime and what position would make it not eligible - for example I would hire a thief, but not as a warehouse manager. In fact, not knowing about a potential problem is a bigger problem than "being unfair". I believe in redemption, but not in "born again".
    - franga2000 5y ago
      > life is not fair or unfair by itself, it's just life Yes, which is why we have laws - to bring fairness to a system that is indifferent to it. And the ability to serve your time and then move on with your life is one of the ways. I completely understand your point of view and I'd be similarly careful with someone who just got out of prison. Here's the thing: you said you wouldn't hire "a thief" as a warehouse manager, but someone who went to prison for theft, did their time, got out and has been probably more law-abiding than the rest of us is not a thief - they were a thief. Again, caution makes sense for a recent offender, but after they do their time and don't do commit more crime for some time, it definitely becomes unfair to judge them for it. Unfortunately, most people don't see it this way, they only see a criminal, which is why employment is such a big problem for ex-cons (esp. in the US) and why I believe there should be a "right to be forgotten" at least after some time has passed. // And hell, I'd love a former thief as a warehouse manager - who better to spot other employees stealing stuff than someone who knows exactly how it's done :)
      - AdrianB1 5y ago
        Right, but in the end it sounds like this: because some (or many) employers don't have a good judgement, we should simply hide the past to everyone. It sounds like a collective punishment to me. In the end, you cannot make the universe fair by enacting human laws. Paid or not, mistakes from the past exist even if you hide it under the carpet. Same as you need to learn from history, not to ignore it, this particular history should be available, not hidden.
- trmonx 5y ago
  It should be different, internet is not an archive of old newspaper articles.
  - AdrianB1 5y ago
    It does not have to be that different, Internet is a lot more than an archive, but it includes that capability.

orf 5y ago

There are obviously counter cases where people have committed crimes many years ago, but a trivial search for their name brings the crimes up as the first result. This obviously makes it hard for them to move on. It’s an impossible line to draw concretely, but there is a distinction between branding someone for life over what may have been a one time mistake and keeping an accurate and accessible record of the news. The examples you used as examples are obviously pretty horrible and won’t draw sympathy, but there are obviously other crimes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bradly 5y ago

> every deindex involves someone trying to hide something bad they've done Maybe you are thinking of every deindex that you see articles written about? There was a fraudulent website listing my vacation rental as their own with their own number listed as the "owner's phone number" and everything. The entire site is vrbo listings with fake owners number. Every property had the same number. Do you know how hard it is to get a website taken down in the U.S.? Their hosting provider, GoDaddy, did nothing saying they don't deal in illegal matters and to contact the FBI. The FBI did nothing. The only thing that got the listing taken down was a DMCA request to GoDaddy on the photos and text as they were ripped direct ly from VRBO. In 48 hours my listing was removed. Site stayed up and my listing came back two more times. Each time I filed a DMCA with GoDaddy and the listing would be taken down. Even their BBB listing had multiple people calling it a scam. https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/cape-canaveral/profile/vacation-rentals/family-friendly-vacation-rentals-llc-0733-90699755 https://www.bbb.org/us/fl/cape-canaveral/profile/vacation-re... Excerpt from the letter from GoDaddy: If you have concerns regarding abuse issues (such as scams, etc) please submit a complaint using the form located at ABUSEFORM.COM. We are not able to assist you with abuse based complaints from the Intellectual Property Infringement Claims department. If you feel that illegal activity is taking place with regards to this website content, you'll want to contact law enforcement. GoDaddy is not a law enforcement agency and cannot perform an investigation of this nature. We will be happy to assist law enforcement if they contact us directly about an open investigation. Thank you. Kindest Regards, [REDACTED] Go Daddy

youngtaff 5y ago
> Maybe you are thinking of every deindex that you see articles written about? Nope, I'm thinking of the notifications I get in my inbox from Google when they deindex articles from a couple major UK newspapers