Should Google forgive and forget?
Should Australians have the right to be forgotten online? We want your opinion.
There’s an emerging debate over what data we store, how we store it, who can access it and how widely it can be searched and promulgated.
Continue reading »...
At the heart of the debate is Google, the all-seeing, all-crawling, eight-eyed octopus which can make suckers out of people trying to hide recorded transgressions. The search engine shines a spotlight on the past: recent and not-so recent, happy and sad, remarkable and forgettable.
But that’s the nub: should some things be forgotten? Does information have a use-by date? If so, which data should be destined for destruction?
CLA welcomes your views, as we move to make up our minds about formal CLA policy on this issue.
We are already leading the way in highlighting a dilemma which arose in Canberra in the recent past. A man with a distinctive name was sentenced to two years jail, suspended and with six months of weekend detention only to be served, for a low scale pornography-on-computer offence. He served his penalty, and remains on the “pedophile” register, though formal psychiatric evidence suggests he is extremely unlikely to ever engage in pedophilia.
But, because he has a distinctive name, whenever a potential employer does a Google search, the man’s sentence for pornography comes up very high on the results list, as his name was entered by a news outlet as a “keyword” for search purposes.
Not only is the man’s name distinctive, so is the type of work he does. He is an elite professional in his field. For more than two years he has been unable to get work anywhere in the world because of Google search rankings.
Had his name been “Smith”, it is unlikely a search would reveal his transgression at all. Should judges be taking more account of the perennial penalty that some sentences can impose? In this case, a suspended two-year sentence appears to be a sentence of no work for life.
What do you think?
See: What Europe and USA think according to a New York Times article
1 comment
Surely, the Judge's order, long ago handed down with a limit set accordingly, can not be extend above and beyond the law; especially, by a non-judicial internet company.
I am fully aware of how the Sentencing Act delivers both alternate and extended forms of penalty (viz, Home Detention, Probation, Parole et al.), however, to reach the end of one's sentence as imposed by a court of law and have Google, for one, record an expired sentence is, to my way of thinking, criminal.
I realise that some people on parole for example, and in particular, someone with a significant name, can count on being unable to work for the rest of his or her life, and by implication this unauthorised extension of punishment, is a debilitating liability that not only afflicts, if not denegrates the individual, but adversely affects health, nutrition, community and social relationships and so on.
Regardless of whether or not the person did or did not commit the crime for which he stands accounted, he has:
1. Done his time, and
2. The sentence imposed upon him has expired.
No-one has the right to drag up his past and prevent him from living out his life.
To continue to PUBLISH an account of his past history is criminal and the PUBLISHER should be held accountable.
Further to which, Google et al., does NOT hold the power and ought not be able to assume the responsibility of storing and holding personal, legal, sensitive (or otherwise)data.
What is the underlying intention of the Google administration? Blackmail? Is Google playing Hangman now? Is Google Judge and Jury? An authority that must determine eternal suffering?
Put away the whip Google. The bloke has done his time and even if he had not we, in Australia have our own authorities who if necessary will store our data.
-Justice to all-
Give the guy a FAIR GO.
Post Script. I am concerned for the well-being of every human whose right to Freedom, and Privacy, Justice and Liberty is imperative to the preservation of the human race and that is inclusive of prisoner who have and who have not yet completed their time.
Criminal act + Penalty = Finished. End of story.
-
Comment feed for this post