If You Run a Red Light, Will Everyone Know?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
If You Run a Red Light, Will Everyone Know?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/technology/03essay.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
17 comments
I have very mixed thoughts on this. I guess if the information is public to begin with I don't have a problem making it more accessible. But should the information even be public, especially with all the mistakes that plague the data? I'll probably be thinking about this for the rest of the day.
What's everyone else think?
What's everyone else think?
I think this is interesting. I looked for myself, and the information is just plain wrong. (I have no criminal record, but I clicked a link to some affiliate site that gives you general information.) I learned something new -- getting wrong information is more comforting to me than getting no information. If someone decides they want to kill me for disagreeing with their Hacker News post, they will look up "my" address, be excited that they found me, and then go to the wrong city to do the deed. If there was no information, they would keep looking until they found something, but this false positive should satisfy their curiosity and they will stop digging deeper. (Of course, if someone really wanted to kill me, they should look at my public Dopplr profile instead :P)
But should the information even be public, especially with all the mistakes that plague the data?
The legal system provides recourse for publishing false information. If someone turns you down for a job because of the false criminal record, I'm sure your lawyer can help you out. In most cases, though, the information is probably correct, so there is no point in hiding it.
This is sort of like the argument against Google Street View -- "what if someone sees me walking out of a sex shop." I say, well... eventually society will realize that people buy stuff at sex shops, and we can stop worrying about what other people think. It will help society evolve.
I think the same is true with criminal records. If everyone sees how prevalent marijuana use is, eventually society will stop demonizing it. In the case of other crimes, perhaps you can explain yourself out of the shame.
Either way, I think this will hurt individuals in the short run and help society as a whole in the long run. (That probably means it will be made illegal in another week or so. Call me cynical :P)
But should the information even be public, especially with all the mistakes that plague the data?
The legal system provides recourse for publishing false information. If someone turns you down for a job because of the false criminal record, I'm sure your lawyer can help you out. In most cases, though, the information is probably correct, so there is no point in hiding it.
This is sort of like the argument against Google Street View -- "what if someone sees me walking out of a sex shop." I say, well... eventually society will realize that people buy stuff at sex shops, and we can stop worrying about what other people think. It will help society evolve.
I think the same is true with criminal records. If everyone sees how prevalent marijuana use is, eventually society will stop demonizing it. In the case of other crimes, perhaps you can explain yourself out of the shame.
Either way, I think this will hurt individuals in the short run and help society as a whole in the long run. (That probably means it will be made illegal in another week or so. Call me cynical :P)
[deleted]
I think the same is true with criminal records. If everyone sees how prevalent marijuana use is, eventually society will stop demonizing it. In the case of other crimes, perhaps you can explain yourself out of the shame.
This sort of assertion I tend to doubt. Many of the people who seek to demonize and preserve the criminal status of marijuana have, in fact, used it, although they defend their behavior with pithy excuses like "I was young and dumb" or "it was the '60s; it was different back then". Society doesn't demonize the rare vices, unless they are dangerous to innocent people, e.g. pedophilia, so much as it lunges for the common ones. What do the morals police stand to gain from crusading against, say, a blue-and-yellow-striped-dress fetish? Virtually no one has such a fetish, so it gives them no power base. Premarital sex, on the other hand...
You might hope that people with rigid moral stances might soften them when they discover good people who live differently, but the fact is that a lot of these people are more inclined to turn against old friends than to revise their opinions.
The issue with vice voyeurism is, moreover, not one of acceptance so much as privacy and professionalism. Pretty much everyone accepts that sex is a part of normal life, but no one would want to have his/her sexual history available on the Internet, nor come up at a place of work.
This sort of assertion I tend to doubt. Many of the people who seek to demonize and preserve the criminal status of marijuana have, in fact, used it, although they defend their behavior with pithy excuses like "I was young and dumb" or "it was the '60s; it was different back then". Society doesn't demonize the rare vices, unless they are dangerous to innocent people, e.g. pedophilia, so much as it lunges for the common ones. What do the morals police stand to gain from crusading against, say, a blue-and-yellow-striped-dress fetish? Virtually no one has such a fetish, so it gives them no power base. Premarital sex, on the other hand...
You might hope that people with rigid moral stances might soften them when they discover good people who live differently, but the fact is that a lot of these people are more inclined to turn against old friends than to revise their opinions.
The issue with vice voyeurism is, moreover, not one of acceptance so much as privacy and professionalism. Pretty much everyone accepts that sex is a part of normal life, but no one would want to have his/her sexual history available on the Internet, nor come up at a place of work.
I plan to tell my children, once they are old enough, not to get tattoos. The reason being is that you will force your 35 year old self to live branded with what your 16 year old self thought was cool.
On second thought, tattoos can be erased by laser, Myspace might be much more permanent...
On second thought, tattoos can be erased by laser, Myspace might be much more permanent...
Tell them to get the tattoos, and stay the heck away from social sites until they're 25.
(I say that only partially in jest)
(I say that only partially in jest)
This site just eliminates the step of Googling for the county's web page. There's nothing here you couldn't do for free, it just makes it a tiny bit easier.
The site makes it a lot easier. There are thousands of counties in the United States. This site lets you search all of them in a moment.
And we continue our march closer to the year 1984.
To argue at the extremes, we shouldn't live in a world where cameras pick up your every public move and speech and allow others unfettered access into our lives.
It's been said, and I agree, that the ability to forget is what keeps us civil -- both with our family members and with others.
I think we need to legislate some kind of forgetfulness when it comes to misadventures.
I'm afraid we're beginning to live in a period without history.
It's been said, and I agree, that the ability to forget is what keeps us civil -- both with our family members and with others.
I think we need to legislate some kind of forgetfulness when it comes to misadventures.
I'm afraid we're beginning to live in a period without history.
yep we are, funny anecdote:
One older guy I went to school with made a posting over 15 years ago on some small usenet group about doing LSD.. its now one of the top 10 results for his name on google.
He would have never thought back then that anything he writes on that small forum would every be accessible and searchable by the general public.
Its not fair. Google should really anonymize most usenet postings done > 10 years ago.
One older guy I went to school with made a posting over 15 years ago on some small usenet group about doing LSD.. its now one of the top 10 results for his name on google.
He would have never thought back then that anything he writes on that small forum would every be accessible and searchable by the general public.
Its not fair. Google should really anonymize most usenet postings done > 10 years ago.
It is that kind of self-policing (is that how it is spelled?) that really sucks.
And it is one of the reasons I make little use of Facebook. I realize that silly stuff or things I'm passionate about now might come back to haunt me.
And it is one of the reasons I make little use of Facebook. I realize that silly stuff or things I'm passionate about now might come back to haunt me.
[deleted]
That's awful. Did it ever get him in trouble? I'd be surprised if any sane person held it against him, but I know that there was a Canadian psychologist who was turned away at the US border because he wrote an essay about using LSD for research purposes, four decades ago, when it was legal.
searched for bill clinton, and most likely this is not the right one, but the offense is amazing (EATTING ALL OF THE HAMBURGERS) :
http://criminalsearches.com/details.aspx?id=53330029
Too many typos to be real.
Weird...
Weird...
http://criminalsearches.com/details.aspx?id=5778713