Comment by DarkWiiPlayer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkWiiPlayer | Hacker News Reader

Interesting question. While in principle it seems like a terrible idea to force someone to delete such "important" information, I also kinda understand how the person in question wouldn't want this information floating around forever.

If I understand the situation correctly, it should probably be enough if this journalist would anonymize the names in the article, so it can no longer be traced back to any individual. After so many years, that does seem reasonable.

Also consider that journalists were never allowed to just publish anything. There always had to be a public interest for them to be allowed to publish certain details about peoples lives, so it only makes sense that they'd have to remove it as this public interest fades with time, yet the impact on peoples lives remains the same.

Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up when googling your name is a news story like that. On the other hand, who really cares about that story enough that it's worth possibly destroying someones life over it?

---

EDIT:

From the text > “My only duty is to write and verify information,” Mr. Biancardi said from the apartment where he and Ms. Lotti worked 12-hour days at side-by-side desks. “Everything else comes after.”

Interesting that the privacy of the subjects he writes about doesn't seem to be a part of his thought process at all. If his defense was "There's still (and always will be) a public interest in this case", then I might have agreed, but with that attitude, I won't even call this guy a journalist.

> Just imagine having to apply for a job when the first thing that comes up when googling your name is a news story like that.

Around here it's illegal to google applicants without their consent. Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided.

Granted, that's undetectable unless the person doing the hiring messes up and mentions this. I do follow the law myself, don't really know what others are doing.

Also not sure how widespread this requirement is even in Europe.

Where is "Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided" the law? This seems very excessive. For example, if I used to work with you at a different company and know you're really good it's very strange that I wouldn't be allowed to consider that in hiring you.

Surely there at least needs to be some way to seek independent verification (or otherwise) of the information provided by the applicant. We can't be expected to make hiring decisions solely and entirely on people's self-provided information.

You can ask for verifications of course. You can get copies of the degrees, access any GitHub account the applicant provides, call to former employers they provided as recommendations. If applicant refuses to do that, well, I suppose you can use that factoid in the hiring decision too.

Just ask for permission to google if it's crucial for the process.

That seems to be quite the reasonable law then.

Finland. For the Finnish speakers among us, it's "Laki yksityisyyden suojasta työelämässä". [0]

Employers do ask opinions from employees within the company if they've worked together in the past. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if that's grey area or not.

I don't find the law excessive, but I'm quite privacy oriented to start with.

[0] https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2004/20040759

Thanks! I don't read Finnish so I'm reading your link in translation, but I don't see where in the law it says employers can't use outside sources of information in evaluating potential candidates? Could you point me to that section?

4§, two first sentences lay that out pretty clearly through Google Translate too.

> Hiring decisions can use only information that the applicant provided.

That would seem to preclude things like criminal background checks, or even calling up universities to verify any educational credentials the applicant listed on their resume.

Indeed in my nation you can't. You can ask the candidate to give you some self-certification of it which would put him under criminal trial if he lied, but you cannot contact any third party and ask for direct information (nor get an authorization to ask for direct information) about another person

They can be explicitly requested by the employer or required by the law.

I had to provide the criminal background and prove my studies to my current employer.

I also had to pass a medical examination to obtain a certificate of eligibility to work.

They are provided by the applicant anyway, you don't do secret background checks, at least you shouldn't.

In my country, the state provides a cert to the applicant stating that his background is sufficiently clean. No more details. You can't tell if I am spotless or have done jail time but it was long enough ago not to matter anymore.

It does containg language like ... has no criminal record, except for child molestation etc... Which doesnt mean we're a country full of perverts, only that it can't be trusted for jobs working with children, another cert is used for that.

Most developed countries don't do BG check's for tuppenny ha'penny (trivial jobs) jobs in the same way the USA does.

In the UK its only for working with kids and jobs requiring a proper security clearance.

"Around here it's illegal to google applicants without their consent."

Pretty sure that this is the first thing HR do everywhere, along with checking the personal page on social media etc. The first thing they look for is what the applicant told the world about his/her previous jobs and employers so that they avoid hiring people who talk too much.

I doubt this is widespread here. Companies don't want excess legal/reputational risks, especially professional HR folks are for sure aware of legislation they're operating under.

In countries with more lax approach to privacy, yeah sure it's going to happen.

The problem is that if there's no accountability or clear legislation then nothing stops someone from entering a name into a search engine, also because being fined for doing so would reveal an unprecedented level of surveillance. It probably depends on the context as you write, but I wouldn't be surprised by anything: years ago, probably 20 or so, there was a report of some companies or recruiters using horoscopes to decide if hiring someone was advisable or not:^)

But in this case there is clear legislation and accountability. Not surveillance sure, but trust that everyone follows the law, and plenty of people willing to speak up internally and externally if the law is broken. That's exactly how most laws work after all: no proactive surveillance, but consequences if caught.

Internet never forgets

Yes it does. The internet forgets lots of things. And anyway, this isn't about completely removing information from the internet, but removing it from the "front" of the internet, aka. news sites that show up at the top of google searches and are more trustworthy than some discussion from 9 years ago on a now half-dead message board.

Not wanting to dispute your point about the ranking of information, but sadly many news articles provide less perspective and accuracy on issues compared to original sources. I would consider it the rule by now.

It does, moreso than ever before, because fast internet speeds allow on-demand access and no-one has to download anything. Media files like Youtube videos or podcast episodes rarely get archived, at least in a publicly accessible way. Once they are taken down, they are usually gone.

There's a particular 1970s Pan Am ad I regret not saving: just a man looking at the camera and challenging the viewer to "do the things you always wanted to do" instead of worrying too much. Few years ago it got taken down from Youtube and I haven't been able to find it anywhere else online.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com