For a US example look at NAACP v. Alabama (1958). If you are on the side of revealing this information, you are on the same side as some pretty unpleasant folks.
I try to pick my sides based on what seems right, not based on who else picks that side.
(I do not have a side in this particular fight.)
I look at the picker of sides and their motives to determine the consequences of picking a side. I tend to favor protection of people as a whole.
Taken literally, this suggests that you can't work out the consequences without looking at the supporters. If that's what you mean, I have to say it seems weird to me.
Taken less literally: if you think the consequences of one side winning include "people get harmed", you can just say that. You can point at the consequences instead of the supporters.
Plus bad actors are quite good at sounding very good in the abstract while showing their true colors in their actions.
Imagine if there existed similar databases then. Would you hire someone if you knew they were firmly pro-segregation at age 20-something in 1950-something?
Which nation, exactly?
Imagine if there existed similar databases then. Would you hire someone if you knew they were firmly pro-segregation at age 20-something in 1950-something?
Probably not, not. I would certainly probe very carefully to see whether they had abandoned such a stance, since many aspects of personality and and political attitude are formed early in life. If you go back and look at documentary footage from around the time schools were integrated, in the 50s, you can see many youngish people protesting that and waving placards with swastikas and so forth on them (this less than 2 decades after the Nazis were defeated in WW2). A lot of those people held on to those ideas and passed them onto their kids.