
Cleveland.com’s ‘right to be forgotten’ removes names from some crime stories - danso
https://www.imediaethics.org/cleveland-coms-new-right-to-be-forgotten-program-removes-names-from-some-expunged-crime-stories/
======
jawns
Former news editor here.

Perhaps the biggest danger in this and other similar policies is not how it is
applied today -- removing the names of people accused of minor crimes that
have had their records expunged seems like a compassionate policy, given the
effects it can have on things like employment prospects -- but in how it may
be applied in the future.

The idea that a newspaper archive is a collection of living documents, capable
of being amended, rather than fixed snapshots of the past, is a fundamental
shift.

My concern is that down the line, more alterations will be permitted to be
made, and potentially for less reasonable reasons, and then it's only a matter
of time before archival information cannot be trusted, because there may be no
way to determine what, if anything, has changed.

That didn't used to be the case. When print copies of newspapers were used for
library archives, it was practically impossible to alter all extant hard
copies.

But nowadays, unless this content gets indexed and preserved by numerous
outside entities, it would be very easy for a newspaper to silently modify its
own archives.

I would be more comfortable if the newspaper included, as part of its policy,
a requirement that a versioning ledger be published along with any altered
archival stories, such as:

* On 2018-10-19, this story was edited to remove the name of the suspect, under our "Right to Be Forgotten" policy. A copy of the original story is available for inspection at our office.

That, at least, would allow people perusing the archives to know whether a
story had been altered long after publication, and it would give people who
_really_ need the information to acquire it (albeit not easily).

~~~
smrq
Paranoid response: if such a versioning ledger were to exist, how could you
trust it? The feasibility problem still remains (it is feasible to alter
archives that were formerly infeasible) and you now rely on trust that (1) all
alterations are accompanied by a versioning notice, and (2) the summary
presented in the notice is accurate and complete.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>Paranoid response: if such a versioning ledger were to exist, how could you
trust it?

Blockchain to the rescue (for real this time, I think, I'm not an expert or a
blockchain fanboy). A publicly ledger that anyone can verify hasn't been
tampered with is the whole point.

~~~
cribbles
Why not just provide a hash for each version of the document?

~~~
rwcarlsen
But that just changes the problem to one of archiving the hashes immutably.

~~~
fuzzybeard
Which is what blockchain does. We're experimenting with using it to create
audit logs of data, which can't be tampered with.

------
hirundo
The ‘right to be forgotten’ is backwards. Much better would be a 'right to
remember'. The right to be forgotten is a positive right, in that it requires
other people to take action (e.g. delist a story from Google) to fulfill it. A
right to remember would be a negative right. Like a freedom of the press
doesn't require the government to subsidize a printing press or equivalent, a
right to remember would just mean that the state can't compel anyone to delist
a story, etc.

Positive rights are more open to abuse, and better serve the centralization of
power.

A right to be forgotten cannot be applied without infringing on someone else's
right to speak about what must be forgotten, as in the case of forcing Google
to delist something. A right to remember only infringes on the very dubious
"right" to control someone else's speech and/or memory prosthetics, e.g search
engines.

~~~
cortesoft
Yes, this is always my argument against this sort of thing. Enforcing one
person's right to be forgotten is infringing on someone else's right to
remember.

Say, for example, I get beat up by someone. They are convicted and go to jail,
but then in 10 years time they get their record expunged. Am I no longer
allowed to tell people about what happened? I should be allowed to tell my
story. I should be allowed to tell people what that guy did to me. If I want
to write about it, I should be allowed to do that.

It is my right to decide how long I want to remember, and who I want to tell.
If I don't want to forgive, and I want to tell people "This guy beat me up 10
years ago, I don't think you should have them around", that is my right, too.

The government doesn't get to decide how long I can hold that grudge.

~~~
piker
It's not your right to dispense such justice--that in fact belongs to the
state in a civilized society. I think this example proves the exact opposite
of what you desire. Someone who has spent time in jail and had their record
expunged 10 years later has been deemed by the state to have satisfied the
burden of their offense, and, yes, their right to have their actions forgiven
and forgotten should be at its zenith.

[Edit: Downvotes? How about a response then? What's the purpose of jail if (1)
we know it's not rehabilitation and (2) the convicted's debt to society is not
satisfied upon serving the sentence?]

~~~
oh_sigh
Where are you getting that serving your time in jail gives you the right to
have your actions forgotten? Society 'forgives' you when you serve your full
sentence, but there is nothing stated anywhere that your victims need to
forget what you did once your sentence is up.

~~~
gowld
The OP article explains the concept of "expungement"

~~~
oh_sigh
Yes - it is one thing to remove it from official records - it is a whole other
thing to ask victims to not remember, or at least not bring up, what a person
did.

~~~
Thiez
If "bring up" means putting it online where everyone with a name and 20
seconds on google will find it, then there isn't really any point to removing
something from official records.

That said people wanting to be forgotten tend to just ask for search engines
to ensure that their name will no longer be connected to certain pages rather
than having the information removed entirely.

------
nimbius
this is important in the united states, as the criminal justice system is
often used as a blacklist. Once convicted of a DUI or drug possession, this
criminal record can be used to bar employment, rescind voting rights, and
legally practice housing discrimination.

American criminal justice is often a precursor for lasting biblical
retribution. For example, sex offenders are often branded with scarlet letter
for life even after having been incarcerated and released, presumably
rehabilitated and having paid restitution to society. Criminal records are
made public and posted to websites. disclosure is often required by law for
prior felons.

~~~
Forbo
Even more so than the sex offender registry, I think US news reporting is more
problematic. I wish the US were more like Germany (I think?) in the regard
that they don't identify people by name until conviction. By that time,
there's less interest in sensationalizing a story.

~~~
Thiez
In the Netherlands it is customary (but not mandatory) for the media to
include only the first letter of the last name for people who are not yet
convicted. So when John Smith is in the news as the prime suspect of a murder,
he will be referred to as John S. There are some exceptions, e.g. when someone
is already a public figure, or when someone actually seeks the media
attention. Sometimes the last-name omission looks a bit silly because many
other countries (such as the USA) will publish the full name, so for high
profile cases one can generally find the full names just by searching online.

That said the system works pretty well because people generally don't bother
looking up the full names.

------
cronix
> the site would remove names from older stories if their records were
> expunged.

That seems reasonable. If the record is "expunged", you can _legally_ say that
you have not been convicted of that crime. So it can't legally be used against
you (like on a job application)... so references to that crime should be
removed from public view.

~~~
pc86
Yes, but a news article saying you were arrested for something still happened,
and is still factual.

~~~
cronix
The problem is you can _legally_ say you were never convicted of that crime if
it's expunged. If a background check is performed, it will not show up on your
record, which will be contradictory if it's still in a newspaper article (or
some other public source). It's a catch-22. An employer cannot legally use it
against you. If they see it in print they can discriminate (illegally, but who
would know) against you. If you can legally claim "I have not been convicted
of a crime," then it shouldn't be in print showing you have been. It should go
away, just like the criminal record, and just like if someone were to conduct
a bg check.

~~~
paxys
You don't see a problem that the government is infringing on my right to post
literal facts online?

~~~
pc86
It's not a fact, though. Expungements are the legally way of saying "this
should have never happened and legally it did not" for criminal convictions.
So anything saying that someone was convicted of Crime X when it was expunged
is by definition _not_ a factual article.

------
justin66
This is not the strangest self-censorship cleveland.com has engaged in. The
strangest I'm aware of is publishing otherwise full physical descriptions of
wanted criminal suspects while omitting their race.

~~~
kenjackson
If you have a full physical description then isn’t race redundant?

~~~
oh_sigh
I'm guessing they meant traits like hair color, eye color, height,
distinguishing tattoos or marks, gender, but not skin color.

~~~
justin66
Precisely. Hence my use of the phrase " _otherwise_ full physical
descriptions."

cleveland.com meant well and thought that this omission would help fix a
problem they had, a high volume of blatantly racist postings in the largely
unmoderated comments section of their paper in reaction to stories about
crime. This solution did not work. It's as if racists aren't driven by sober
and precise readings of the newspaper text, or something...

------
nostromo
An additional solution would be to stop publishing names for suspects
entirely. Wait until the person is convicted to release the name.

~~~
cronix
They have already been prosecuted and convicted. You can't "expunge" a crime
off your criminal record unless you've been convicted of it. It's ok to
publish people who have been convicted of a crime. That's public info. It's
NOT ok, to still have it published when it's _expunged_ from your record. The
article is specifically discussing expunged crimes.

~~~
danso
That said, u/nostromo raises a good tangent. When I worked at my college
newspaper, which was before Google had become so dominant a fact of day-to-day
life, there was no second thought about publishing the name, age, and address
of suspects in the police blotter (the daily listing of suspects arrested,
mostly for public intox). The age and address were part of the arrest record,
and important to disambiguate between similarly-named people. Back then, it
hadn't yet occurred to society how Google effectively made info permanently,
globally, and efficiently searchable.

Nowadays, I think the status quo for college newspapers is to not print names:
[https://www.poynter.org/news/college-papers-dropping-
arreste...](https://www.poynter.org/news/college-papers-dropping-arrestee-
names-crime-blotters)

------
jordanthoms
In New Zealand we have strong name suppression laws - if the court orders it,
a defendants name cannot be published in any media (even a tweet naming the
person would be illegal, and they do prosecute). AFAIK, in most cases you can
still go attend the hearing in the court and see who the defendant is - so
it's not really secret, but difficult to find out without going to some
effort.

The theory behind it is that the public shaming (particularly for public
figures) from being named would be a punishment, and you shouldn't be punished
for a crime without having been found guilty. There's been quite a few high
profile abuse cases with this recently where rumours spread around around
which 'high profile sportsman' it is.

These days with blogs and social media it usually just turns into a rumor
mill, and someone outside NZ jurisdiction can name the person legally. It's
also a pretty clear violation of free speech, and judges seem to be very
willing to give name suppression, and sometimes maintain it in place even if
there is a plea deal and the person is convicted - There's a solid argument
that it results in abusers being back out in the public, without people even
being warned. So it's not exactly my favourite bit of NZ law :)

------
mc32
I’d like to see a codified system where elsctronic docs and records must have
timestamps and certain kinds of content must get “forgotten” de-indexed, over
time. Midemeanor mentions get de-indexed afer x-years, felonies y-years,
murders and the sort, never.

Obviously this would require refinement. That said, someone could resurrect
one of these records and reset the clock, but being derivative, the click
would have to run much faster. Also it should not be automated (as that would
subvert the while idea).

However, in practice this msy be unworkable without draconian enforcement.

~~~
cortesoft
Not even sure how draconian enforcement would work, unless you forced every
country to do the same. I could just set up a service that makes a copy of
every document/record that is set to be deleted, and host it in a country that
doesn't have that rule.

~~~
true_religion
You could do that, and US lawmakers will likely get lobbied to just block your
site. Which is fair.

------
comyesa
Rehabilitation doesn't always work. I doubt a sexual degenerate can be
"cured". It's okay if they stay in prison just to be punished and are taken
apart from society. It's okay if they can never be around children.

~~~
Forbo
"The evidence suggests otherwise. Sex crimes researchers R. Karl Hanson and
Kelly E. Morton-Bourgon of Public Safety Canada conducted a large-scale meta-
analysis (quantitative review) of recidivism rates among adult sex offenders.
They found a rate of 14 percent over a period averaging five to six years.
Recidivism rates increased over time, reaching 24 percent by 15 years. The
figures are clearly out of alignment with the public’s more dire
expectations."

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-
cri...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misunderstood-crimes/)

~~~
thefreeman
Sorry but 25% of offenders committing another sex crime in the next 15 years
more then enough for me to agree with the fact that they need to be identified
and tracked.

~~~
kamarg
Do you support tracking non-sex crime criminals that have been released given
they have a higher rate of reconviction than sex offenders?

"Recidivism rates for sex offenders are lower than for the general criminal
population. For example, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study of 108,580 non-
sex criminals released from prisons in 11 states in 1983 found that nearly 63
percent were rearrested for a non-sexual felony or serious misdemeanor within
three years of their release from incarceration; 47 percent were reconvicted;
and 41 percent were ultimately returned to prison or jail."[1]

[1] -
[https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90200&page=1](https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90200&page=1)

------
qubax
So strange to see so many people celebrating 1984 style censorship.

What the hell is "right to be forgotten". That isn't a right.

Media gets to be less and less reliable and less truthful.

If people want to be "forgotten", let them change their name/identity.

------
reaperducer
I wonder what would happen if a world leader, like the president of France,
invoked his EU-given right to be forgotten.

Imagine the chaos, not only on web sites, but across all of society.

Would schoolbooks have to be re-written? What would teachers say when children
asked who the xth president of the republic was?

~~~
matt4077
The President of France does not have a right to be forgotten, as people of
public interest are exempt.

~~~
reaperducer
_people of public interest are exempt_

Sounds like a new badge of honor for minor "celebrities" and people who are
self-important.

Are there codified specifications for "people of public interest?"

