Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by shakna on Friday April 06, 2018 @05:03PM
(#16777420)
And what happens when the false conviction is overturned?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by gray_-_wolf on Friday April 06, 2018 @05:44PM
(#16777733)
In that case make it required by law to publish apology following same format as was the original article. Did you print the false claim on title page of newspaper? Same place, same size for and apology. Same with web articles. That should at least make it searchable by engines.
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by shakna on Friday April 06, 2018 @05:59PM
(#16777835)
That information has already been dissiminated. And usually has a higher hit-rate than any correction.
We know employers can and have discriminated against individuals where convictions have been overturned.
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by losteric on Friday April 06, 2018 @07:08PM
(#16778281)
Relevancy is a problem that firmly falls under Google's responsibility... and businesses must be punished for discriminating over incomplete background checks.
However, I don't think the false conviction should be hidden - what if they were guilty and there's a crimes down the road? That information could be useful for the public.
Re:Google seeks to limit ‘right to be forgotten’ by claiming...
by astura on Friday April 06, 2018 @07:39PM
(#16778466)
Saying "X was convicted of Y" is not a "false claim," when X really was convicted of Y. If X's conviction is later overturned, that's additional information, but it doesn't make the original information false.
Nobody owes anyone an apology.