5 ms·

It really depends. Some people would consider it “outdated and inaccurate” to report they were arrested for some crime - even if that’s true. Should such articl

by eli 3y ago

It really depends. Some people would consider it “outdated and inaccurate” to report they were arrested for some crime - even if that’s true. Should such articles be scrubbed from Google if they are causing harm? Removed from newspaper archives too?

bashinator 3y ago
That would bring us back to parity with pre-Internet society, assuming said info could still be accessed through court and library archives.
graypegg 3y ago
In my own opinion, if you’re arrested, have paid the standard debt to society that we all (in theory) have agreed on, and gone back into society seeking a job… forcing people to constantly deal with their old (non violent) crimes seems like extra-judicial punishment for very little benefit. Even worse to leave that punishment to a private company.
- eli 3y ago
  Hmm so is that just crimes or anyone can get anything bad they’ve done removed from the internet?
  - graypegg 3y ago
    GP comment was about specifically information about crimes. Not sure what precedence is set by the decision mentioned in the article.
    - eli 3y ago
      Just seems awfully hard to draw a line. So if the victim of the crime published an essay about what happened, are they allowed to tell their own story and have it listed in Google? What if it’s a story about conduct that could be criminal but for which you were never charged?
      - twoodfin 3y ago
        Fortunately, in the US it’s fairly easy to draw a line: There’s no First Amendment exception for “I’d rather you didn’t remind people of that.”
        eli 3y ago
        I wouldn’t be so certain of how the first amendment applies to tech platforms (esp as interpreted by current SCOTUS) This case could go either way https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/scotus-to-review-florida-and-texas-social-media-laws-in-big-tech-vs-gop-battle/amp/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/scotus-to-review...
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  You would've had Epstein's history erased after his first stint in jail
- Teever 3y ago
  Do you think a world where it is illegal for a victim to tell other people that someone victimized them is a just world?
- Vvector 3y ago
  Where do you draw the line? My SIL, divorced with a young daughter, started dating a man. My wife (her sister) googled him and discovered he was a convicted child molester. What if I was hiring an accountant? Should I be able to google him and find out he had been convicted of embezzlement?
  - djbusby 3y ago
    The line is surely at "inaccurate" which is mentioned up-thread and in the case. Neither of your scenarios describe an inaccurate datum, just old (but not outdated)
    - eli 3y ago
      Hmm is this really about “privacy” then? Seems like privacy would mostly be about things that are accurate. We already have laws about libel and defamation. Who decides what’s inaccurate or outdated? I think the subject of a negative article may often feel it’s inaccurate even if it’s generally correct.
    - Vvector 3y ago
      I was responding to the poster who claimed that this is an "extra-judicial punishment" after the person has "paid the standard debt to society". If someone was convicted in a court of law, the information isn't inaccurate. Addressing your point, if the newspaper article is inaccurate, why not have the article removed or corrected? Instead, it is the opposite. The man says the articles can stay up. Canadian defamation law is pretty clear. If the article is false, he can sue to have it removed. I'm tending to believe delisting from Google is the man's plan because he can't get the articles removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law FTA: "The man said outdated and inaccurate information about him in newspaper articles found on the internet was leading to great personal harm, including physical assault, employment discrimination, severe social stigma and persistent fear." and "He wanted the information to be delisted – made unsearchable, unless someone knew the website urls featuring his name."
  - graypegg 3y ago
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  if you’re arrested, have paid the standard debt to society [..] It's a little careless to equate arrest with conviction.
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Sorry, you’re right, that’s the wrong word. I mean “tried and convicted”.
ben_w 3y ago
Even if the reason you're being physically assaulted is for a crime you did do, yes, information about this shouldn't still be easy to reach on the internet by your release from prison. Adding mob justice to the formal legal system doesn't make it better. > Removed from newspaper archives too? No, but most people don't look in the archives so that doesn't matter.
- eli 3y ago
  How would you craft a law that applies to some search engines but not others? Market share?
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I assume from the question that you think I think newspapers archives means online archives. I don't, they can be offline, just as they were prior to the internet. If you meant anything else: I wouldn't distinguish between any search engines, large or small… but I'm also not a lawyer or a lawmaker, so I have a paper-thin awareness of the consequences of my suggestion that even ChatGPT can probably poke holes in if only it weren't so sycophantic.
theironhammer 3y ago
Arrested or convicted? Though to be arrested in many eyes means guilty.
theptip 3y ago
Rather than speculate or reinvent from first principles, we could look at existing “right to be forgotten” laws like GDPR: https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ Not sure what the Canadian basis is, but in general these laws recognize that it’s a tradeoff where the public has some interest in most information, and the individual may have an interest in it being forgotten. Criminal records would be a clear grey area where one could make the case for a public interest particularly in the short term, which is less strong over time. But inaccurate reporting is clearly much less eligible for the public interest. I think phrasing it as a right is perhaps sets the wrong framing, as it’s quite conditional. (Certainly seems to trigger many Americans.)
bonoboTP 3y ago
This is why in most of Europe, full names are not printed in the press, the last name is abbreviated, and photos are blurred.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  Until conviction.
backtoyoujim 3y ago
Instead of "some people" why not offer a real world example of this assertion.
- eli 3y ago
  I’m so sure because I’ve worked for news websites and personally had this happen. I’d rather not antagonize them by linking the article. But in some cases we’ve added editor's notes or addendums to provide additional context or updates. We always correct factual errors. But I don’t think we’ve ever taken an article down because someone didn’t like it. Sorry you’ll have to take my word for it. It’s common enough though. Here’s an old pointer article https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/5-ways-news-organizations-respond-to-unpublishing-requests/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/5-ways-news-o... and there are tons of companies offering to help you get articles removed from Google.

by eli 3y ago

bashinator 3y ago

That would bring us back to parity with pre-Internet society, assuming said info could still be accessed through court and library archives.

graypegg 3y ago

In my own opinion, if you’re arrested, have paid the standard debt to society that we all (in theory) have agreed on, and gone back into society seeking a job… forcing people to constantly deal with their old (non violent) crimes seems like extra-judicial punishment for very little benefit. Even worse to leave that punishment to a private company.

eli 3y ago
Hmm so is that just crimes or anyone can get anything bad they’ve done removed from the internet?
- graypegg 3y ago
  GP comment was about specifically information about crimes. Not sure what precedence is set by the decision mentioned in the article.
  - eli 3y ago
    Just seems awfully hard to draw a line. So if the victim of the crime published an essay about what happened, are they allowed to tell their own story and have it listed in Google? What if it’s a story about conduct that could be criminal but for which you were never charged?
    - twoodfin 3y ago
      Fortunately, in the US it’s fairly easy to draw a line: There’s no First Amendment exception for “I’d rather you didn’t remind people of that.”
      - eli 3y ago
        I wouldn’t be so certain of how the first amendment applies to tech platforms (esp as interpreted by current SCOTUS) This case could go either way https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/scotus-to-review-florida-and-texas-social-media-laws-in-big-tech-vs-gop-battle/amp/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/09/scotus-to-review...
wahnfrieden 3y ago
You would've had Epstein's history erased after his first stint in jail
Teever 3y ago
Do you think a world where it is illegal for a victim to tell other people that someone victimized them is a just world?
Vvector 3y ago
Where do you draw the line? My SIL, divorced with a young daughter, started dating a man. My wife (her sister) googled him and discovered he was a convicted child molester. What if I was hiring an accountant? Should I be able to google him and find out he had been convicted of embezzlement?
- djbusby 3y ago
  The line is surely at "inaccurate" which is mentioned up-thread and in the case. Neither of your scenarios describe an inaccurate datum, just old (but not outdated)
  - eli 3y ago
    Hmm is this really about “privacy” then? Seems like privacy would mostly be about things that are accurate. We already have laws about libel and defamation. Who decides what’s inaccurate or outdated? I think the subject of a negative article may often feel it’s inaccurate even if it’s generally correct.
  - Vvector 3y ago
    I was responding to the poster who claimed that this is an "extra-judicial punishment" after the person has "paid the standard debt to society". If someone was convicted in a court of law, the information isn't inaccurate. Addressing your point, if the newspaper article is inaccurate, why not have the article removed or corrected? Instead, it is the opposite. The man says the articles can stay up. Canadian defamation law is pretty clear. If the article is false, he can sue to have it removed. I'm tending to believe delisting from Google is the man's plan because he can't get the articles removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_defamation_law FTA: "The man said outdated and inaccurate information about him in newspaper articles found on the internet was leading to great personal harm, including physical assault, employment discrimination, severe social stigma and persistent fear." and "He wanted the information to be delisted – made unsearchable, unless someone knew the website urls featuring his name."
- graypegg 3y ago
anigbrowl 3y ago
if you’re arrested, have paid the standard debt to society [..] It's a little careless to equate arrest with conviction.
- graypegg 3y ago
  Sorry, you’re right, that’s the wrong word. I mean “tried and convicted”.

ben_w 3y ago

Even if the reason you're being physically assaulted is for a crime you did do, yes, information about this shouldn't still be easy to reach on the internet by your release from prison. Adding mob justice to the formal legal system doesn't make it better. > Removed from newspaper archives too? No, but most people don't look in the archives so that doesn't matter.

eli 3y ago
How would you craft a law that applies to some search engines but not others? Market share?
- ben_w 3y ago
  I assume from the question that you think I think newspapers archives means online archives. I don't, they can be offline, just as they were prior to the internet. If you meant anything else: I wouldn't distinguish between any search engines, large or small… but I'm also not a lawyer or a lawmaker, so I have a paper-thin awareness of the consequences of my suggestion that even ChatGPT can probably poke holes in if only it weren't so sycophantic.

theironhammer 3y ago

Arrested or convicted? Though to be arrested in many eyes means guilty.

theptip 3y ago

Rather than speculate or reinvent from first principles, we could look at existing “right to be forgotten” laws like GDPR: https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ https://gdpr.eu/right-to-be-forgotten/ Not sure what the Canadian basis is, but in general these laws recognize that it’s a tradeoff where the public has some interest in most information, and the individual may have an interest in it being forgotten. Criminal records would be a clear grey area where one could make the case for a public interest particularly in the short term, which is less strong over time. But inaccurate reporting is clearly much less eligible for the public interest. I think phrasing it as a right is perhaps sets the wrong framing, as it’s quite conditional. (Certainly seems to trigger many Americans.)

bonoboTP 3y ago

This is why in most of Europe, full names are not printed in the press, the last name is abbreviated, and photos are blurred.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
Until conviction.

backtoyoujim 3y ago

Instead of "some people" why not offer a real world example of this assertion.

eli 3y ago
I’m so sure because I’ve worked for news websites and personally had this happen. I’d rather not antagonize them by linking the article. But in some cases we’ve added editor's notes or addendums to provide additional context or updates. We always correct factual errors. But I don’t think we’ve ever taken an article down because someone didn’t like it. Sorry you’ll have to take my word for it. It’s common enough though. Here’s an old pointer article https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/5-ways-news-organizations-respond-to-unpublishing-requests/ https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2010/5-ways-news-o... and there are tons of companies offering to help you get articles removed from Google.