Hacker News Reader

Comment by cromwellian | Hacker News Reader

The only problem is, Google isn't the only way to find this information. It exists in social networks, on Twitter, Facebook, and even in Archive.org. It also exists in local search engines provided by the sites themselves.

If you have an uncommon name, and you were covered by the news media, or by social media, I can go direct to the AP, NYT, or Twitter search just as easily as Google.

It's sad that the internet can't forget, but the law can't make this a reality.

Does anyone seriously believe anyone doing serious research, stalking, or a background check on someone will be stymied by Google censoring links?

How many of you searching for pirated warez are stymied by DMCA takedowns and don't just go directly to Torrent search engines?

View on HN

That's not a problem, the information isn't being removed, it's just being stopped from being the most visible representation of you, it's being de-emphasized.

Like in the old days everyone in the village knew Billy was caught with his pants down with a goat, but no-one brings it up every time they see him. Unlike "asshole" Uncle Google.

It's funny that this is said a lot that the internet can't forget... but the internet can and has forgotten a lot, so to speak... especially with regards to frequency/recent models in Google, Twitter, etc... a lot of stuff falls off relatively quickly... and it's actually hard to find some stuff that happened in the late 90's and early 00's, because you're trying to remember when concert X was, or who was the opening act...

There are plenty of times that the "internet forgets" which archive.org works to prevent, but it still happens.

The idea is that, if you search for it with determination, it becomes legally something completely different than if you stumble upon it "accidentally" while doing a "standard google search of the new job candidate"

Eh I say if people honestly can't learn to accept that things about other people from a significant time ago might no longer be relevant, then have SEO become a more personal service, and if people want to have their search results managed, because of whatever, they can manage it themselves or hire a professional, much like they would a lawyer, accountant, plumber, electrician, realtor, or agent. I mean they are having to hire lawyers presumably to get forgotten.

It won't be hard to bury a 6 year old photo of a random person shitting on the beach under all the new content.

In the EU we all know it is very hard to fire someone once they have been hired. Why won't employers start using background search services to find this information rather than Google?

See, it is illegal to reject or fire someone for this (mostly) – just because you, as a kid, partied hard, doesn’t mean employers can discriminate against you.

A lot of employers started testing the "anonymous job application": They only get a UUID, your qualifications and CV, and only after they decided if they want to hire you or not the employer actually gets the name, age, gender, etc.

VW, for example, is taking part in this. Also makes sure that no one can complain about ageism/sexism/racism/transphobia/otherkinphobia/etc

Mostly: There are cases where some types of background checks are legal.

This is an amazing practice. It's the double blind method applied to hiring!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com