News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case by CaptainZapp on Friday April 13, 2018 @12:34PM (#16831571)
Low level dope fiend? Visiting a prostitute, or selling sex? I can think of a number of crimes, which are pretty much irrelevant for a character assessment.
Re:Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case by kafquaesque on Friday April 13, 2018 @08:44PM (#16835160)
This is extremely relevant for someone that was formerly a prostitute or drug addict. Even with laws in the US to wipe underage prostitution records there is still a major issue of people even knowing it exists. The people that get convicted of underage prostitution sometimes are trafficking victims. So in the US we are so harsh that we punish previous human trafficking victims indefinitely. It’s a balance. Employers have the means to identify those convicted of crimes.
Re:Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case by briandear on Friday April 13, 2018 @01:19PM (#16831975)
Is google publishing articles about this? Or are they simply a card catalog? Want to be forgotten? Why not address the publisher of information and not merely the index of it?
Re:Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case by TomMarius on Friday April 13, 2018 @04:54PM (#16833824)
These things shouldn't be considered a crime in the first place, and I asked for real examples. I won't turn down a candidate for my sw dev position because they used to be a prostitute.
Re:Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case by Xylakant on Friday April 13, 2018 @05:28PM (#16834046)
HR will just filter out all candidates with a record to be on the safe side. They won’t evaluate if the record is relevant or not.
Re:Google loses ‘right to be forgotten’ case by TomMarius on Friday April 13, 2018 @05:37PM (#16834094)
HR will also filter out candidates without an university (sometimes even specific, expensive ones) and you're not complaining about that. What about fixing HR instead?