College Papers Won't Rewrite History For Alumni

Hugh Pickens writes "The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that as college papers have begun digitizing their back issues, their Web sites have become the latest front in the battle over online identities. Youthful activities like underage drinking that once would have disappeared into the recesses of a campus library are now preserved on the public record, and alumni are contacting newspapers with requests for redaction. Unlike with Facebook profiles, that other notable source of young-adult embarrassment, the affected parties can't remove or edit questionable content. In 2007, a Cornell University alum sued the Cornell Chronicle over a newly digitized article from 1983 that reported he had been charged with burglary while a student at Cornell. The alum found the article after Googling his name and claimed that its new presence online was causing him 'mental anguish' and 'loss of reputation.' But a California judge threw out the case after determining the report to be accurate. Some student papers, like The University Daily Kansan, have found a middle ground by adding the noindex meta tag so that the documents stay online, but search engines such as Google do not index them. 'I thought that would be better than kind of like sticking it to [the alum] and saying the paper is always right and we can publish anything on the Web we want,' says the paper's editor."

Comments

once something has happened no unhappening for you

[randuev]

isn't it obvious, that once something has happened it cannot be erased from history of this light cone? the only thing you could possibly do about events in your past is to provide an alternative version preferably as soon as this happened. i have plenty of record online under my real name, of course there are some things that are embarassing to me ages ago, but plenty of time has went past :)

Just like email recall

[sigxcpu]

Although some email clients pretend to have such an option, I have never seen it work.
You always get these bogus messages saying that someone is trying to recall the email. Which just makes things worse.

What you really need is a TOTAL RECALL option.

(Insert your favorite 1984 quote here.)

Re:Just like email recall

[timmarhy]

exchange server allows it. your shitout of luck if it's across the internet though. really if your a twit when your young the best course of action is to admit you were an idiot and say you've learnt from your actions.

it's rather retarded to think some 50 yo CFO who has had an outstanding career is any less capable because he was arrested for drunk and disorderly 30 years ago. frankly i find such things refreshing knowing the big guns are human as well.

Re:Just like email recall

[davidphogan74]

He may have also invoked the Streisand Effect by attempting to get it removed. Who'd have noticed until he got upset?

Re:Just like email recall

[Anonymous Coward]

Next you'll be telling Ike jokes.

Grow up asshole

Re:Just like email recall

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Ike didn't put the US into the shitty situation it is in now. We've had war criminals for presidents since Ike. Except Carter.

Simple Solution.

[supernova_hq]

Don't want your stupid college actions preserved forever? Don't do stupid things!

Re:Simple Solution.

[spottedkangaroo]

The problem for alums like this is that tweens don't often think as clearly as their 30/40 iteration would wishes.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a stupid comment if there ever was one. I mean, as kids, you're supposed to know that you're doing something stupid? Stupid is as ... bah.

Re:Simple Solution.

[hitmark]

Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age...

The thinking these days seems to be that we are robots, with set behavior cut in stone at a early age, with no ability to alter that except when guided by trained professionals in a controlled environment.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, "tween" refers to pre-adolescents.

Re:Simple Solution.

[MrMista_B]

Don't do stupid things? Don't be human!

Re:Simple Solution.

[owlstead]

That's true of course, but a bit too simple. Often these kind of public stories can punish somebody much more than the original sentence, even if there was one. Personally, I know that I've made mistakes in my life (although none too serious). I would not want that each of these results stay online forever. This is however something you'll have to deal with nowadays.

Still, I would like that public institutions would think twice before (re-)publishing stories with names in them. Especially when it is with publications that are not easily verified such as student papers, where the articles have not been written by trained individuals. It might be that even the authors may have problems with that; even though the articles may provide a nice insight in the institution, the writers themselves probably weren't writing articles for the whole world to view. That law student that made a prank article about canabis probably did not want the whole world to browse his comments now that he/she is a full grown judge.

Removing the indexing does seem to be a nice middle ground. And we should train the current students (including those in lower classes) that anything you publish today will be become available forever. There's no such thing as a limited number of copies anymore. Some person will always scan something and put it on the internet, now or later on.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the advice, Mr. Perfect. Unfortunately, that superficially perfect suggestion is actually rather stupid.

Young people need to be able to do stupid things within a context of safety and forgetting in order to learn about themselves and the world. If someone's every action will be on record for the rest of their life, then they will feel unnecessary pressure to stay neatly within the lines and remain naive and unworldly for fear of the consequences. It would stifle their creativity, their adventurousness, and consequently their outlook on the world and everything affected by that.

Re:Simple Solution.

[davidphogan74]

Or have a really, really funny story to tell about it.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Frequency Domain]

That's a stupid comment if there ever was one. I mean, as kids, you're supposed to know that you're doing something stupid?

If the guy cited in the summary were a minor I'd agree with you. However, if he were a minor the paper couldn't print his name. But a college age kid doing burglary? Yeah, he should know he's doing something stupid.

Re:Simple Solution.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

If you have to pick between someone that did a bunch of stupid stuff at university and someone who didn't, who are you going to pick? These are not kids we are talking about. They are 18+ years old. When the hell are they going to grow up and take responsibility for their own mistakes/actions?

Re:Simple Solution.

[rastilin]

Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age...

I suspect the adult world already understands that, after all, they were once Uni students as well.

Re:Simple Solution.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Still, I would like that public institutions would think twice before (re-)publishing stories with names in them..

So archived newspapers (including microfiche), court reports etc all have to be "redone" now. This is public information that was published publicly, there is no expectation that it would become private after some time.

If our mistakes are serious enough to become a matter of public record... Then well its there for all to see.

Re:Simple Solution.

[hitmark]

And would not the first step towards taking responsibility, being honest about what one have done, rather then to try and cover that up?

I would say its not important if the person did something stupid or not, as long as the person understand that what one did was stupid and do not plan to do so again if the chance presents itself.

And i would not say that x number of years living is adult or not. Life is a continual learning experience, and i would say that adult comes when one can show that one have taken to heart the values and expectations there is of an "adult" in society, not when some amount of years have been accumulated.

One yardstick i would want to use tho, is that of harming others. if someone can grasp that a action have the potential to harm someone else, and therefor refuses to do so, i would say the person is adult, or at least behaving as one. This based on seeing kids tormenting animals, insects and each other, because they can, and because the tormented reacts in a potentially amusing way. Yes, there are times and places where harming others are, if not needed, the only available option. But if the person approaches that time and place with reluctance, and stops when the minimal harm needed have been performed, the person still to be seen as a adult. Or at least, that's my opinion on the subject.

Re:Simple Solution.

[hitmark]

And yet one feel the need to hide ones non-adult actions from said adults.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Krneki]

What do you remember better from you past, the good actions or the stupid ones? I still lough my ass off every time, together with my old friend, we remember the crazy stuff we did.
We are humans, we aren't perfect and to develop a creative mind you have to explore. If you want a perfect human just get yourself a drone.

Re:Simple Solution.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I'm not so sure that burglary should be mandatory behaviour for students. I'm pretty sure that most people know that burglary is a stupid thing to do, and are aware of the consequences.

Besides, the relatively harmless (in the long term) stupid stuff isn't exactly newsworthy. It's only if you do something really stupid that you get such mental anguish causing and reputation destroying stories in the newspaper.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Krneki]

And don't forget all the revolutions.
If all the humans were to be recorded and punished for every criminal action they make we would still live in a feudal environment. In order to progress we have to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them.

Re:Simple Solution.

[hitmark]

The record is only a issue because the existing adults makes use of said record to judge a person before they learn to know that person and see if said person have learned anything from those past experiences.

Hell, its not only the past record of the person itself that's sometimes used, but also parents and gand-parents (or even further). This may become so heavy a weight, that the person will change surname and move away rather then face the weight. All this because we humans seems to assume we know a person based on recorded actions, not from direct experiences with said person.

This is why, even tho a ex-prisoner i supposed to have done his dept to society, he will be regarded as a lesser human by others ones the background comes up. As such, the person have no real chance of rehabilitation, as he is not given a fair chance to prove himself.

Re:Simple Solution.

[reddburn]

I agree - an accidental Google search can reveal some startling things that - a decade ago, before the mass digitization of the world had started to really archive stuff - would have no longer mattered. The problem is that instead of viewing information gleaned from mediated sources with a judicious, reasoned eye, we've become accustomed to playing "Gotcha!" -- even on those who are themselves ultimately inconsequential.

To anyone so very concerned about a loss of social status based upon decades-old infomation, as well as those who believe that the petty actions of a long-gone teenager define the character and worth of a fully grown and emotionally developed adult, I offer the following:

Choose a dozen random 18-20 year old American males. Place them two to a room in very close quarters, with little supervision by those they consider authority figures. Watch for a year and see how many have defaced or destroyed something extremely valuable, gotten into a fight, stolen things from public venues for fun, played laser tag with a nail gun, or done any of the other infinitely stupid things we've all heard friends talk about.

At that age, the tribal instinct is so strong that it really only takes one strong voice and the sight of more than one follower to begin a cascade of events leading to something asinine, dangerous, illegal, or all three. More interesting is that these young men are evolutionarily likely to bond best with one another precisely because they are engaged in a dangerous or arduous endeavor: they're at the same stage of development (albeit much farther along) as members of tribes from time immemorial who are kicked out to go kill stuff together until they're grown up enough to contribute more than dead animals.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Rich0]

True. But, I think the fundamental issue is supply/demand. There are just more people able to do a job than there are (desirable) jobs that people are willing to pay good money for.

So, if you're applying for a coveted position, and you are one of 50 resumes, and all of them are qualified, but you are the only one that has a record 20 years in the past, what do you think will happen?

Sure, if there were one candidate that stood head and shoulders above the rest stuff like this would get overlooked. But usually that isn't the case.

Same thing applies to standardized testing. Sure, everybody knows that it is imperfect. However, when you have 1000 applicants for a med school opening you need to have some way to throw out applications. Standardized testing is as fair as just about any of them.

The real solution is to find better ways to employ people so that there are more openings.

For school applicants this is easy - build/accredit more universities. There is no reason that everybody who wants a college/medical/legal/whatever education and is willing to pay for it shouldn't be able to obtain one. Sure, if you want a scholarship there can be some evaluation of merit, or if you want to apply to some elite program. However, the problem with schools is one of poor supply management.

For jobs things are harder - you can't just pay people to do things that nobody really wants. Arguably the government can create demand for jobs that truly do benefit the public (infrastructure, blue sky R&D, etc), but there are limits. I think that at some point the whole system of wealth acquisition by working or owning capital will probably need to change (and I'd hardly consider myself a socialist). I'm not sure we're there yet, but at some point automation will get to the point where nobody actually needs to work - and then how do you decide who gets to eat and how large a population is too much? Some resources will still be scarce, but labor will not be - so how do you decide how to allocate the resources that are avaiable. It could be utopia or a nightmare depending on how the world ends up being governed...

Re:Simple Solution.

[hitmark]

And funny enough, that's the age of soldiers in most parts of the world...

It also reminds me of a psychology experiment about prisons...

bingo: http://www.prisonexp.org/

Re:Simple Solution.

[Daengbo]

Depending on the sensitivity of the position, I might take the person that did a bunch of stupid shit and that can intelligently discuss the lessons learned from those mistakes.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Eivind]

Indeed -- I belong to those who think this is entirely okay.

What's the problem ? That people can now sometimes see -evidence- that you're just human, which includes doing some things in your teenages which you likely wouldn't with 30 ? It's not as if this wasn't always the case, and anyone who's not an idiot knows it.

If you where really much more of an idiot than the average Joe, then well, sucks to be you. But I -really- don't think it's much of a problem that acting like an idiot carries some risk that people in the future will learn that you acted like an idiot.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Dogtanian]

This is public information that was published publicly, there is no expectation [my emphasis] that it would become private after some time.

See, you talk about "expectation", but the Internet- or anything like it- wasn't on anyone's horizon in 1983 (I doubt that even the academics that used it knew it would be so important and all-pervasive 25 years later).

What you say is technically correct, but doesn't account for how the Internet changed the implications of something being "public"- and *that* is what people would not have expected back then.

At the time, reports would have appeared in newspapers and been prominent for a short while. They would have remained "public", but without any simple way to search them, let alone easily available to any random person with a cheap computer, they wouldn't have been found without good reason and some work.

My point being while you can argue whether or not "our mistakes [being] serious enough" should warrant them becoming "a matter of public record", but you can't deny the fact that after 25 years the Internet has changed the fundamental implications of something being on the "public record", even- or especially- things that became public before the Internet was a factor, in ways which wouldn't have been considered back then.

Re:Simple Solution.

[mdwh2]

If I manage to refrain from committing criminal acts such as burglary, I'm not human?

TFS is misleading to compare this to activities like getting drunk - we're talking about reporting of criminal matters, and this college paper is no more guilty than any mainstream paper that publishes such information.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Dogtanian]

And don't forget all the revolutions.

If all the humans were to be recorded and punished for every criminal action they make we would still live in a feudal environment. In order to progress we have to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them.

Of course, if the majority of people were living under a system of law that punished them in such a way- effectively permanently oppressing them- they'd have little to lose by supporting the overturn of the regime that supported it, making revolution *more* likely.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Philip_the_physicist]

FYI, JRR Tolkien first used it to mean those who were no longer teens, but under the age of 33. Unless you can find an earlier reference, I think the GP is using the word more correctly.

Re:Simple Solution.

[QuestorTapes]

> Young people need to be able to do stupid things
> within a context of safety and forgetting in order to
> learn about themselves and the world.

I have problem with this statement: which stupid things and what context of safety?

This was a burglary. What about rape? What about felonious assault resulting in permanent damage? What about repeated drunk driving convictions?

Some parents have let underage kids drink at home becuase it's "safer". Sometimes that has backfired, resulting in fatalities. What is the "safety" part of being in a school environment, which I would argue is far less safe than a parental home environment?

> If someone's every action will be on record for the
> rest of their life, then they will feel unnecessary
> pressure to stay neatly within the lines and remain
> naive and unworldly for fear of the consequences.

That's an interesting assertion; I would want to see actual analysis of real-world data before I accept it as a proposition. But just to look at one point:

> If someone's every action will be on record for the
> rest of their life....

I would agree that not everyone's every action should be on record for the rest of their lives, but the truth is, long before public databases and the internet, people's actions tend to be remembered if they are embarassing or illegal or unethical. You've never been able to pick and choose which parts of the public memory are preserved.

Anyone who in their forties and fifties is still called by a childhood nickname, or introduced to new people by their friends as "the guy I told you about, who got drunk and stripped naked in the quad, and we duct taped him to the statue of Thomas Jefferson" will understand what I mean.

> It would stifle their creativity, their adventurousness,
> and consequently their outlook on the world and everything
> affected by that.

I would suggest that neither "creativity", nor "adventurousness" is a universal good nor a universal bad. Some killers, rapists, assorted psychopaths sociopaths and assholes (the guys who created Enron, Bernie Madoff, the guys running AIG) are very creative. Any number of brutal criminals are adventurous. Those are not necessarily good things.

I would agree that creativity and adventurousness should be encouraged, within certain educational and parenting contexts. And even some business contexts.

But I would argue that indescrimate petty crimes (and serious crimes), drug and alcohol binging, and casual sex are not desirable nor should they be in these contexts.

(Got my asbestos shorts on...)

Re:Simple Solution.

[AlexBirch]

I think we should do a class-action lawsuit against kdawson for mental anguish.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Antique Geekmeister]

No, the problem is that they don't have enough money to donate to the school to have the records revised much more quietly, or to hire an editor who's a friend. It's much easier to get such material trimmed via "editoral trimming" by a friend on staff than via an outright request.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would stifle their creativity, their adventurousness, and consequently their outlook on the world and everything affected by that."

You're right.

But when we're talking about *crime* versus creativity and adventurousness, I don't have a lot of sympathy.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Dan541]

Maybe when they realise Google reveals all.

Re:Simple Solution.

[MrMista_B]

Obviously, no. What I stated rather plainly was that stupidity is part of being human - there's just no way around that. You want to penalize people for being human, sure, but forgive me if I'll not accept your viewpoint as much more than, well, stupid.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course! It's so simple!
And remember, only those with something to hide have something to fear!
Wait...

Re:Simple Solution.

[Main Gauche]

Optionally, make the adult world understand...

Ok, hold on a sec.

*Waves Anti-Idiot Wand +5*

There, that should do it. Keep in mind about 3% of the population probably made their save.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the argument just isn't about burglary, it's about "stupid" things like getting drunk etc.

Re:Simple Solution.

[that this is not und]

It's interesting to discover that Tolkein had his target demographic identified and even a name to assign to it.

Though, it's not so much a 'demographic' as a social strata he helped create: the 'trapped between' permanent adolescent. The kind who can speak elven, etc.

Re:Simple Solution.

[that this is not und]

And would not the first step towards taking responsibility, being honest about what one have done, rather then to try and cover that up?

That would be why, having the 'unfortunate history' may make it hard to get an interview, but if it's later discovered you covered something up, you can be instantly fired on the spot, even years later, if HR wishes it so.

Re:Simple Solution.

[R2.0]

"Young people need to be able to do stupid things within a context of safety and forgetting in order to learn about themselves and the world. If someone's every action will be on record for the rest of their life, then they will feel unnecessary pressure to stay neatly within the lines and remain naive and unworldly for fear of the consequences. It would stifle their creativity, their adventurousness, and consequently their outlook on the world and everything affected by that."

Your statement is self contradictory. You propose that people should be able to do things without "fear of the consequences". Tell me, how do they learn that some actions are good or bad if they are isolated from the consequences of those actions "within a context of safety and forgetting"?

Your attitude is what is 100% wrong with the recent attitudes toward raising children - protecting them from the consequences of their actions. Have fun raising your kids - you won't know you've fucked up until they are grown and it is too late.

Re:Simple Solution.

[that this is not und]

There is no reason that everybody who wants a college/medical/legal/whatever education and is willing to pay for it shouldn't be able to obtain one.

Certainly!

Further, there's no reason why anybody who wants to be a rock star and is willing to pay for it shouldn't be able to attain that goal.

The problem with the above is that society only needs so many rock stars, and so many MDs. And so many EEs, etc.

We can't just educate our way to prosperity.

Re:Simple Solution.

[mdwh2]

You want to penalize people for being human, sure

Straw man. My point was the issue of penalising people for burglary.

but forgive me if I'll not accept your viewpoint as much more than, well, stupid.

Ah, you have no argument, so you resort to an ad hominem. That's surely a sign of intelligent debate.

Re:Simple Solution.

[IndustrialComplex]

What's the problem ?

In my case, there is an article that I wrote for the editorial of my newspaper when I was a freshman in college. I still stand by my statement, however my statement is not what is printed. The editorial staff took my letter and cut it down to fit into a rather 'blurb' style. The result is that my letter now looks like this:

Statement *rationale for statement* conclusion, with the rationale heavily edited. It nearly changes my statement from a criticism of a policy for very specific reasons into an ignorant sounding rant.

It isn't even that bad, but it isn't what I said. And it shows up when you google my name a few pages in.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

ditto!

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its only Stupid if you don't learn from it. The small amount of wisdom I have now in my dottage is due to the erros of my mispent but fun life.

Oh and having to live with the consequences of said mistakes.

Re:Simple Solution.

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm not so sure that burglary should be mandatory behaviour for students. I'm pretty sure that most people know that burglary is a stupid thing to do, and are aware of the consequences.

Ignore burglary for a moment. Consider underage drinking. Often this is included in police announcements to newspapers. But, they are underage, so you won't get their names right? Well thanks to being in the USA, underage includes people ages 18-20, so you can be charged as an adult, for committing an underage crime, and your name is published.

I was arrested for being too close to underage drinkers once. I was 20, at the same party, but not drinking (I was the DD). However, being 'underage' I was considered by local law to have been de-fact 'underage drinking' and was charged accordingly. The charge was tossed by a judge later, but the police announcement would have remained.

How many HR reps would toss out an applicant because they have an arrest record on the internet, but no record of that arrest being tossed out by a judge later?

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, solving this situation like an adult would be by going to a bar, drinking yourself to a coma, get up the next morning with a terrible hang-over and complain to your friends/co-workers about it until you get another chance to get drunk.

How would a college student (or younger) solve this situation? Get high and say fuck the world, and embrace his/her individuality.

The second action seems like a better choice to me.

Re:Simple Solution.

[TaoPhoenix]

Absolutely right.

Didn't we used to dream of fame and fortune, "which of course were not to quit a DayJob for?"

Now In InfoAmerica, you have fame which makes your DayJob Quit You(TM), and by the miracle of constant expenses vs. fickle revenue, destroys your fortune.

$hit, another item for my project. (Rummages in personal library.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Past
Adapting from Page260 of The Edge Of Tomorrow anthology:
~"For the newspapers to publish these archives would have meant that everyone's past would be visible. People would be subjected to blackmail and improper pressure, since who on Earth has a past that is absolutely clean?"

-------------
Offtopic memo. You're a Dumas fan right? Did you hear abou the recoverd lost Dumas novel, The Last Cavalier?

Re:Simple Solution.

[IndustrialComplex]

Your attitude is what is 100% wrong with the recent attitudes toward raising children - protecting them from the consequences of their actions. Have fun raising your kids - you won't know you've fucked up until they are grown and it is too late.

In this society, consequences are quickly becoming a total and complete destruction of their adult life. When 'mooning' someone can land you on the sex-offender registry, there are some consequences that we do need to protect our children from.

Re:Simple Solution.

[noidentity]

Don't want your stupid college actions preserved forever? Don't do stupid things!

How is being accused of theft something you do? It's something someone else does to you.

Re:Simple Solution.

[FooRat]

Sure they do! They just don't *care* when they're young. This is because they decide they'd rather have fun than worry about the future consequences.

Naturally they'll regret this once the future eventually arrives. Then they expect society to absolve them of responsibility for their earlier decisions, pretending that they were 'unable' to think clearly when they were young. Yeah right.

Re:Simple Solution.

[FooRat]

That's a stupid comment if there ever was one. I mean, as kids, you're supposed to know that you're doing something stupid?

I don't know where you grew up, but by the time I was 18, I must've been told by society (parents, teachers, school, messages on TV, messages in comics, messages in movies, magazines, you name it) about a gazillion times that mindlessly getting drunk, underage drinking, partying your life away etc. are bad. I find it hard to believe, as you suggest, that any child raised today has never been told this stuff. So that's one way that they're "supposed to know". (Never mind that it should be obvious to any kid with an ounce of common sense, and yes, kids do have some common sense from at least the age of 10.)

Re:Simple Solution.

[FooRat]

"Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age"

The "adult world" does understand that, but it's a statistics game, and it's perfectly valid. Pretend you're an employer, about to hire someone. You have two resumes in front of you. Candidate A worked hard throughout his childhood studies, obtaining excellent marks. Candidate B spent his youth partying or doing other stupid things. Which do you think is more likely to be the better candidate to spend your money on?

You seem to think this is unfair to the one doing stupid stuff. But in fact, it would be highly unfair to candidate A, after working so hard, to treat the two *equally*.

Fact: In general, smart hardworking responsible kids tend to become smart hardworking responsible adults. Lazy kids who want to be absolved of responsibility for their own actions, tend to become like adults.

Re:Simple Solution.

[FooRat]

How about underage drinking, is that "just human", "stupidity", or "irresponsible"?

Re:Simple Solution.

[FooRat]

Young people need to be able to do stupid things within a context of safety and forgetting in order to learn about themselves and the world.

Bull. You virtually never need to actually "do" stupid things to realise they are stupid - you just need to think. Young people need to be taught how to think, that they *must* think, and how to reason out the consequences of their actions *before* carrying them out. And yes, children are capable of being taught to think rationally and to think about the consequences of their actions. I was raised to 'bloody well think about my actions', and I made the effort; I don't see why I should be treated the same as someone who couldn't have been bothered to make that effort.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or would have been if he were Tolkien's contemporary. Virtually everyone now (incorrectly in my opinion as well) uses it to mean preteen (between child and teenager).

And since language unfortunately adapts to the wishes of the masses, AC is correct.

Re:Simple Solution.

[0100010001010011]

Charged with burglary != convicted of burglary. What if they had the wrong guy? What if he was cleared of all charges?

Problem with this is "charged with burglary" is a front page event, the clearing is in a blurb on the 8th.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Tubal-Cain]

But a college age kid doing burglary? Yeah, he should know he's doing something stupid.

If convicted of burglary, yes. But the summary merely states that "he had been charged with burglary".* If I am named as a suspect to a crime in my neighbourhood, and the suspicion is dropped at some later point, I wouldn't like it if someone in HR didn't find the article mentioning that they had found the real criminal.

*Whether or not he commited the crime may be in the article, but you know we can't read that.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Tubal-Cain]

If the only concern is that it will keep you from having a chance to explain yourself, hide it in a manner similar to what The University Daily Kansan did, and bring it up at the interview.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Blakey Rat]

Tough shit. Younger generations are going to be published on the web from the day they're born... if you want to worry about anybody's online reputation, worry about theirs.

Sure, some now-lawyer did something damned stupid when it was 20 years old in college, and it's out there for everybody to see. Guess what? Damned stupid stuff I wrote when I was 14 years old is out there for everybody to see, and I can't do jack to get rid of it. (Plus I share a name with a guy who runs a gay sports blog.)

The greatest thing about the rise of Facebook and LinkedIn is that those pages have pushed the more questionable ones down to the *bottom* 10 of the search results for my name. Well, except the gay sports blogger who is still #2. But I don't mind him as much as the stupid shit I said when I was a kid.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Eli Gottlieb]

What kind of "stupid stuff"? Are we talking coke and hookers or did some kid just get arrested for underage drinking?

Re:Simple Solution.

[Frequency Domain]

If convicted of burglary, yes. But the summary merely states that "he had been charged with burglary".*...

*Whether or not he commited the crime may be in the article, but you know we can't read that.

As a matter of fact, yes you can. Pay particular attention to the part that says "Safety reported recovering some $474 worth of stolen goods from him."

It's interesting that he went on to become a lawyer in California. I can understand him not wanting the information publicly available, I would seek another lawyer if I knew his background.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then, his premise should be reworded. Stupid people will do stupid things and stupidly put them on the internet. Smart people will be more discrete and remain out of sight. I'll have to start teaching that to my kids well before they reach that age.

Discretion is a better part of valor.
Humility is a virtue.

These are truer now than ever.

Re:Simple Solution.

[fishbowl]

If you're not contributing something to your employer of such value that it would not cost tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace you, I'm sure you have much more serious reasons to be worried about "being fired on the spot" than whatever embarrassing-but-legal things you did in the distant past.

Do you have any concept of what it takes to find and hire a career-level professional, even in today's market? It's amazingly expensive and time-consuming and frustrating, and you are simply not going to see an HR administrator decide to fire someone without *solid* reasons *and* an argument that there is a return on the investment of terminating that person.

Re:Simple Solution.

[paazin]

How many HR reps would toss out an applicant because they have an arrest record on the internet, but no record of that arrest being tossed out by a judge later?

Well, clearly those HR reps are doing a piss-poor job and ought to be fired - throwing away potentially the most skilled candidates because of a crappy method isn't a strategy that works in the end.

Re:Simple Solution.

[smoker2]

Only because YOU think you know better. When in fact you don't. When you grow up you'll realise that. Just the mention of the term "adult world" shows that as yet you haven't.

Re:Simple Solution.

[smoker2]

Do you have internet access ? Then publish your own account and let the devil take the hindmost. It pisses me off to see people who whine about freedom of speech issues and never put that freedom to good use. Personally, the only time I have been reported in the newspaper was for doing 86mph in a 70 limit. I don't give a fuck if that shows up on google, and I'm a professional driver.

It amuses me that for all the whining about censorship on this forum, when the censorship would work in your favour, you're all for it !
But of course, that's different.

Re:Simple Solution.

[IndustrialComplex]

Well, clearly those HR reps are doing a piss-poor job and ought to be fired - throwing away potentially the most skilled candidates because of a crappy method isn't a strategy that works in the end.

Do you think that would ever come to light? The HR guy probably had to narrow down the candidates to a handful, and unless some strange circumstance led to the investigation of that particular HR downselection, I don't think it would ever come to light. In the end, that applicant wasn't hired because of some permanent record of an arrest for a crime that they may not have committed.

Re:Simple Solution.

[IndustrialComplex]

Do you have internet access ? Then publish your own account and let the devil take the hindmost. It pisses me off to see people who whine about freedom of speech issues and never put that freedom to good use. Personally, the only time I have been reported in the newspaper was for doing 86mph in a 70 limit. I don't give a fuck if that shows up on google, and I'm a professional driver. It amuses me that for all the whining about censorship on this forum, when the censorship would work in your favour, you're all for it !
But of course, that's different.

You are attributing the general comments on slashdot to me personally. I think you can figure out where that may result in your cognitive dissonance.

I could publish my own account, but it isn't worth it to me. I would merely draw attention to an article which I do not wish attention drawn to. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Re:Simple Solution.

[thejynxed]

I don't want to grow up. I'm a Toys R Us kid.

Re:Simple Solution.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

This guy was arrested for petty theft. He had over $400 worth of stolen items on him at the time.

In New Zealand you are already not permitted to work at a bank or at a till in retail with such a record. There is no shortage of people who don't have such "history".

Re:Simple Solution.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

...I'm sure you have much more serious reasons to be worried about "being fired on the spot" than whatever embarrassing-but-legal things you did in the distant past.

The context here is theft. Petty theft, but theft all the same, and he had stolen items on him when caught. Many people would not treat this as an embarrassment but take it as a serious issue that could make the company more liable if they person is in a position of trust (ie working with money).

Re:Simple Solution.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Yes you have a point. But this still does not make it the newspapers problem. Also in this case there is the criminal record. I don't know what the requirements are like in the US. But in New Zealand and much of the EU, you are required to disclose your criminal record to employers. So this would have been following him without google. In fact the offending article doesn't seem to come up in google at all.

Re:Simple Solution.

[fishbowl]

>The context here is theft. Petty theft, but theft all the same, and he had stolen items on him when caught.

One could argue that a sustained accusation of a crime without a conviction is slander.
Much harder to argue, though, if he did commit the crime.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you have a point. But this still does not make it the newspapers problem.

That as may be, however you specifically mentioned "there is no expectation that", and it was that which I was discussing.

I don't know what the requirements are like in the US.

Neither do I; I've never even visited the place let alone lived there.

But in New Zealand and much of the EU, you are required to disclose your criminal record to employers.

In the UK (which is a member of the EU), some- but not all- offences which are "spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, are not required to be disclosed to employers.

Re:Simple Solution.

[Dogtanian]

(Above comment was posted by me, should have been logged in but wasn't...)

Re:Simple Solution.

[Rich0]

Further, there's no reason why anybody who wants to be a rock star and is willing to pay for it shouldn't be able to attain that goal.

But, they can. They can't guarantee that they will be popular, but anybody can buy a guitar and take lessons. And, that is all we're talking about here.

My initial argument was about making an education available to anybody who is willing to pay for it. I don't aruge that people should be guaranteed success or jobs. However, what is wrong with somebody who wants to take 4 years worth of basket weaving classes being able to pay to take them? What is wrong with somebody wanting to pursue a medical degree "for fun" with no intent to enter the workforce at all?

There is no reason to artifically restrict the supply of education.

Re:Simple Solution.

[supernova_hq]

Usually there is a reason for it...

Re:Simple Solution.

[supernova_hq]

only those with something to hide have something to fear!

That's actually true. Most people just don't realise how much they are hiding until it is plastered on a billboard for family, friends, co-workers and potential employers to see.

Alumnus

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the word you're looking for when you say alum is actually alumnus. Alumnus is the the singular and alumni is the plural.

Not so simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You may notice that it only said that he was *charged* with burglary. Not convicted of it.

Perhaps the problem is that not many people understand the difference? I know I'd be upset if I was falsely accused of some crime and the accusation (but not the exoneration) was easy to find on Google...

Mind you, I don't know this guy. Maybe he was convicted. I'm just trying to point out that it might not be as cut & dried as it seems. I mean, even the article summary only repeats the accusation and doesn't tell us whether or not he was actually convicted of the crime. I'm guessing he wasn't, or he probably wouldn't sue. But, who knows? I mean, I'd have to RTFA for that...

Re:Not so simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

If you follow the links you'll see the guy is a lawyer, so he must be guilty.

Re:Not so simple solution

[Attila Dimedici]

If he's a lawyer, I'd think a burglary accusation would just show early adoption of "professional" ethics.

Uhm...

[the_other_chewey]

In modern America, college papers write you?

Hello to my fan Barbara Streissand

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can judge what this is all about for yourselves:

The offending issue of the Cornell Chronicle

Re:Hello to my fan Barbara Streissand

[Anonymous Coward]

Hint: "Blotter Barton"

They did actually find $474 worth (in 1983 dollars) of stolen goods from him.

Lessons to be learned:
1. Don't do +10 burglaries and get caught if you don't wanna get in the news.
2. Don't sue the paper for libel, when you actually did the crime, to get the information censored. It will have the opposite effect, moron!

Re:Hello to my fan Barbara Streissand

[TheTurtlesMoves]

So who would get the job.

Department of Public Safety officials have charged Kevin G. Vanginderen of 603 Winston Court Apartments with third degree burglary in connection with 10 incidents of petit larceny and five burglaires on campus over a period of a year. Safety reported recovering some $474 worth of stolen goods from him....

Or the guys with the cool plane on the front cover.

Re:Hello to my fan Barbara Streissand

[pimpimpim]

btw two automobile tyres cost $240? What where they made of, gold?

engines such as Google do not index them...

[AHuxley]

Google indexes everything, its just you dont get to see the results.
The noindex meta tag could really be called "the noshowresults meta tag"
Customers get to see all the web, consumers dont. So yes all the fun you had back in the 1970's 80's will come back to haunt you, if your boss pays for a real search.
Google could also select to remove all or some works too.

Re:engines such as Google do not index them...

[FourthAge]

How do I use this "super search" service, and how much does it cost?

Re:engines such as Google do not index them...

[KORfan]

I believe that Lexus-Nexus can handle that for you. You'll have to contact them for their price structure.

Re:engines such as Google do not index them...

[KORfan]

Correction: Lexis-Nexis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexis-Nexus

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[Jurily]

isn't it obvious, that once something has happened it cannot be erased from history of this light cone?

As even the summary mentioned, the problem is not that it's archived: it's instantly searchable.

Just for fun, I found a picture about myself drunk in 3 minutes with Google. Of course I know what I was looking for, and anyone else has no chance whatsoever to identify me now, but there you go.

P.S. I'm not even registered on any social networking site.

money talks.

[sparkeyjames]

You can best bet that if the person had made multimillion dollar donatations to the University that that article would disappear and never EVER see the light of day again.

Re:money talks.

[Maximum Prophet]

Many college newspapers are independent corporate entities from the college they report on. So a multi-million dollar donation to the University would mean squat to the paper. (You've have to buy the head editor a latte or two to get that kind of pull)

You're Awesome.

[reddburn]

Don't want your stupid college actions preserved forever? Don't do stupid things!

Thanks for your "insightful" words (great job, mods)! I'll be sure to relay that information to myself as a 19 year old the next time I'm twelve years in the past.

Re:You're Awesome.

[FooRat]

19 year olds should be very capable of reasoning out the consequences of their own actions before doing them, and behaving accordingly. If you weren't by that age, then that is a parenting or schooling failure. People aren't naturally good at thinking, sure, but it's a skill that can and must be taught even to children.

Re:You're Awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

You really think there aren't any teenagers here who post on Slashdot?

The comment gives genuine advise. Maybe we still do stupid stuff in our late twenties, and need that comment to be the drop that overflows the glass to be "advised."

Besides, many of us don't admit that we still do stupid things even way past these years, and publicly grieve for these "innocent" post-teens because we can put ourselves in their position, not liking the unchangable truth to be found out.

Society puts pressure on you even as an
"innocent" post-teen "child" to own your actions; this also gives you reasons to bring up your kids to never repeat your own stupidity. They WILL goof around enough to need to rewrite parts of their own history. Anonymity is good for the mind, but newspapers and the internet are making it scarce.

The best way to avoid feeling guilty is indeed to not do the deed. Morals help. Reputations existed WAAY before printed press and the internet.

Easy Solution

[Maximum Prophet]

In some Native American cultures, you have one name before you are an adult, and another after.

Name your kid "John Smith" while in College, and legally change his name to something unique right before graduation.

Re:Easy Solution

[Krneki]

Lol, you are a genius.

Re:Easy Solution

[RobotRunAmok]

If I got to choose, I would like my Indian name to be "Runs With Scissors"

Re:Easy Solution

[idlemachine]

Would that I had points to mod this insightful.

If static identity becomes an issue to us culturally, I can guarantee that we'll move to more fluid forms before long. That there are historical precedents just makes it more inevitable.

Re:Easy Solution

[Scrameustache]

In some Native American cultures, you have one name before you are an adult, and another after.

Name your kid "John Smith" while in College, and legally change his name to something unique right before graduation.

Like "The Doctor"? :)

Re:Easy Solution

[that IT girl]

We laugh at the idea of the legal name being changed, but really, the idea behind that is good. People do make stupid decisions when they are young, and when they mature, folks often claim to be "totally different people". Obviously, this would not apply to serious offenses like burglary, sex crimes, assault with a weapon, etc etc. But if it's nothing severe (as with most people--an embarrassing drunk photo or two, a fight you got into ONCE where nobody was seriously injured, etc) then it should be allowed to fade into obscurity, the way such incidents would have back before the internet.

Re:Easy Solution

[Morkano]

Except all it takes is one page that links previous names to new names, and the cat is back out of the bag again.

We as a society will be better off if we just learn to accept that people do stupid things when they are young, and not worry about it. Everyone does. I think it's rather unhealthy to deny it. Everyone turns into a hypocrite.

Re:Easy Solution

[that IT girl]

Good point. But we aren't maturing as a society right now... if anything, we are going the opposite direction. This would be ideal, though, because you're right--99% of the folks pointing accusing fingers at someone for a trivial offense knows good and well they have a similar story in their own past, or *something* they aren't proud of. Even without a huge incident that stands out, I wouldn't want to be judged now based on the person I was when I was 16 or 18.

Re:Easy Solution

[fishbowl]

>We laugh at the idea of the legal name being changed,

Why? The *women* do it *routinely*. One could argue that there is gender discrimination at work.

Re:Easy Solution

[smoker2]

The solution is the same now as it was 20,30,40,50 years ago - don't get caught. Simple really, no major modifications to society needed. Add to that, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime, and you're all set.
It's interesting that you feel society isn't maturing right now, because it's your generation that's responsible for that. Lack of literacy, general knowledge, common sense, responsibility and a greatly inflated sense of personal entitlement. The MTV generation are in control - look how well that's turning out.

The best thing the burglar in this story could do is keep his head down and if questioned, admit it, describe his remorse and talk about how he turned his life around. Instead he wants other people to keep quiet about it, strangely pursuing this aim by telling everybody ! If you do something stupid or illegal and get caught, then think that everybody is persecuting you by reporting it, you have demonstrated you have an attitude problem. Once you get that attitude right, no more problem. Kids always think they can "stick it to the man" but they usually find out the hard way that you can't. Once you realise that, then you can get on with your life.

Re:Easy Solution

[initialE]

And your adult indian name would be "Paisley Eyepatch"?

Re:Easy Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree; however, some jobs (e.g. state government) require aliases on applications.

Re:Easy Solution

[that IT girl]

Just what generation are you presuming I am from, exactly?

It happens, so what

[Anonymous Coward]

A print of this has been taped to my wall.

Everything we have done has been done because it seemed good at the time for the motives we had at the time and to those personalities we were then.

If I ever meet a company that chooses not to hire me because they can google my political/religious/ideological views, find out that I partied a lot in college or something like that, it isn't a good company to work for anyways. I am sure that even the folks in HR realize that people change over time and them being able to find my LiveJournal account from my teen years doesn't mean that I am still that angsty. But I also see no reason to be embarrassed that I was like that at the time.

Re:It happens, so what

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun working at Starbucks! The rest of us square, boring, EMPLOYED mold-conformers will be living it up, if you don't mind.

Re:It happens, so what

[Scrameustache]

being able to find my LiveJournal account from my teen years doesn't mean that I am still that angsty. But I also see no reason to be embarrassed that I was like that at the time.

Your hope is duly noted : )

Re:It happens, so what

[Karellen]

Being a square, boring, mold-conformer is your idea of "living it up"? Well, if that's what "living it up" is, I, for one, don't really see the appeal. If it's what you want then I hope you have fun with it. Just don't assume it's necessarily for everyone.

Re:It happens, so what

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that HR people are generally robots, unable to think outside of the box. So if it's in the Google search, it *must* be true, and then gets judged based on current ideologies rather than considering the context of the time it was written. (If it's a photo then it can't possibly be photoshopped, if it's a forum post then it can't possibly be a forgery, and so on.)

Good luck with the future job searches, because Google is becoming a widely misused tool for searching for disqualifying dirt on a candidate, using it out of context, and then the HR drone does not even have the guts to let the candidate know that judgement based on a Google search was the disqualifying criteria.

(It's not actually Google's fault, unless they are knowingly skewing search results to put the most negative and embarrassing stuff at the front of the search results, but then other search engines can be misused the same way and it's just that Google happens to be the most popular search engine at this time.)

Re:It happens, so what

[fishbowl]

>I am sure that even the folks in HR realize that people change over time

I'm sure that the folks in HR are the ones who went to liberal arts colleges and didn't wear a stitch of clothes or have ten sober minutes the whole time.

Re:It happens, so what

[Anonymous Coward]

When a company has spent all the time it can afford looking for a clear reason to choose one interview finalist over another, and there is no obvious choice, they have to find a reason NOT to hire somebody. The sooner they whittle the list down to one, the sooner their job is done and everybody gets back to work.

So go ahead and don't be embarrassed about past indiscretions. But also don't be surprised if you are one of the equally qualified interview finalists, and you don't get hired.

returning the favour

[shooteur]

I guess while the PHBs scour other employees facebook, twitter and myspace pages for dirt, the employees can read up on their PHBs dirt in return.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have politely requested they remove it. When they did not spend the money to do enough investigation into their actions they rethink their position. Having a private detective dig up enough stuff and making it publicly available online should do. It's the nasty option but less it can be a more anonymous one.

One good find on the way they mismanage federal funds would be gold.

Re:Hackers.

[jimmydevice]

I wAS iT tWICE, aWSDOME@!

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[Daengbo]

I'm on social networking sites, but not under my real name. Even my on-line resumes are scrubbed.

So what?

[Hurricane78]

What's the problem? Does anyone really think he es the only one who really had fun, and did some stupid things when he was young? Guess what: The guy that's offering you a job, probably had a more crazy youth than you. If someone is really searching in your past for shit to dig up, you're not the ass. HE is! Do you really want to have to do with such an ass?

Have some self-esteem, self-confidence, and stand by yourself. You drank. You maybe smoked some stuff. You maybe had sex with X. You maybe stole something and peed in the pool. So what? The only one who has a right to judge you, is you. And you are the one who defines who is allowed to judge you. If you allow others to control what is OK for you, you will be controlled for the rest of your life.
Maybe you like that. But I don't. :)

At least there is some consolation

[Coeurderoy]

At least there is some consolation in the fact that having done something stupid in your past, will drive away the idiots...
At least the ones who believe that you couldn't possibly evolve, and that what you did at 18 defines what you'll be able to do at 30 away.

Of course it does help if you also did a couple of interesting stuff in the interim....

how is this different

[wintermute000]

How is this different from the general issue of data retention across any internet connected source?

e.g. say you did prank X in uni and it got reported by the normal paper. Said paper article can be found in google. What's the difference between that and the campus news? Why should the campus news be 'expunged' from the record just because its a campus news not 'normal' news?

not a prank, a CRIME

[dltaylor]

We're not talking about mooning the dean of students, or something "fun", if silly/stupid.

The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?". If the charges were unfounded, then a copy of the record should take care of it. If not, then he should have to explain how his head was so messed up that he could put his victim(s) through the hassle of dealing with their missing stuff, and how, if at all, it is different now, such that he is fit for whatever situation in which the question comes up.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Stiletto]

The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?".

Actually, no. Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.

If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[JoshuaZ]

You are creating an extreme strawman argument. The point is if you did something illegal you should still answer for it. That is, you should be ready to explain to potential employers "here's what happened. Here's why I know it was stupid. Here's why you can trust despite said stupid behavior." Comparing having to do that at every interview is not at all the same as giving someone a "life sentence."

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Stiletto]

Comparing having to do that at every interview is not at all the same as giving someone a "life sentence."

From the employer's point of view, merely having to ask that question is an easy way to disqualify someone when there are 200 other applicants for that job that you don't have to ask that question to.

That's why it's quite like a life sentence. If I had it my way, private citizens (and corporations) could not even find out one's past crimes if one completed fulfilling his debt to society.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[FooRat]

Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.

An employer merely (and perfectly validly) wanting to know why he should employ somebody who used to steal is not "punishment". A company has a valid interest in understanding certain aspects of the the character of the people it hires, such as whether or not they are thieves. Having your character judged for your behaviour is not "punishment" in the sense you're referring to. It sucks if you committed a crime, but it's valid.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[FooRat]

That's why it's quite like a life sentence. If I had it my way, private citizens (and corporations) could not even find out one's past crimes if one completed fulfilling his debt to society.

Somehow I suspect you'd feel differently if it was *your* money (your life savings perhaps, or your house up on mortgage) you were about to spend hiring a candidate. Start your own business, then come back to me.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Attila Dimedici]

If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?

If someone was convicted of embezzlement, I do not think it reasonable that they be hired to handle an organization's money unless they can convince the hiring manager that it won't happen again, even after they have served their jail sentence.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Stiletto]

An employer merely (and perfectly validly) wanting to know why he should employ somebody who used to steal is not "punishment".

It is punishment when "merely wanting to know" is code-word for "the interview was over when we pulled your criminal record".

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy was arrested for burglary. It is necessary for him to respond, for the rest of his life, in every job/dating/whatever situation to "what happened?".

Actually, no. Assuming he did his time and repaid his debt to society, he shouldn't be punished for a crime for the rest of his life.

If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?

Bullshit.

Just because a convicted felon did his time in prison, I'm not supposed to treat him like a convicted felon?

In this particular example, the shyster in question was charged with burglary and found with $500 of stolen goods from TEN+ burglaries.

And NOW he's suing to get that information buried.

Do you REALLY think this jackass shouldn't be treated like the amoral asshat he's apparently been his entire life?

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Stiletto]

You failed to bold the second part of my post:

If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?

Perhaps you truly believe this. Why not say it? If you're right and it's "Once a criminal, always a criminal" then why do we have anything but life sentences in jail?

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[DaveV1.0]

He is not being punished for the rest of his life. He is suffering the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life, just like everyone else.

Where you go wrong is assuming that there are only legal consequences for one's actions. There are also social consequences. Social consequences are far reaching. Whether one is homosexual, of a different religion, committed a crime, or has some voluntary physical modification, one will have to deal with the consequences of one's actions.

By the way, are you suggesting that public records be made secret so that only the government, and maybe those directly involved, have access to said records? That would be the ONLY way for your little dream world to exist.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[DaveV1.0]

What crime did you or some friend or relative commit and are not paying the social consequences for?

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[initialE]

You know, it's attitudes like that which reinforce the concept of "a life of crime". If a court orders a conviction to be expunged from the record, it ought to be removed. It's called "rehabilitation", and one way or another, we have to believe it works sometimes, because the alternative would be to terrible to comprehend.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Anonymous Coward]

You failed to bold the second part of my post:

If you really believe that one should have to answer for a crime (and, presumably, be denied employment/housing/etc. because of it) for the rest of one's life, then why not just institute life sentences for every little crime?

Perhaps you truly believe this. Why not say it? If you're right and it's "Once a criminal, always a criminal" then why do we have anything but life sentences in jail?

Are you willing to say you'd hire a convicted serial pedophile to babysit your children after he's released from prison? After all, "he's done his time".

If you wouldn't, you're one big fat fucking hypocrite.

And if you would, you're one big fat fucking idiot.

In other words, your argument that past history is irrelevant in judging character is patently ludicrous.

Past history is probably the best indicator of character there is. The problem is we rarely know enough about past history to get that information.

Whether you like it or not, a felony conviction is one hugely significant, monster data point about a person's character.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Stiletto]

Again, and again, if they're so dangerous, and unfit for society, why let them out of prison? You want life sentences for these (most?) crimes. Just admit it! You'll feel better about yourself.

Re:not a prank, a CRIME

[Anonymous Coward]

When this man is in front of me in a job interview, I will do a background check and find factual evidence that he has acted like a selfish jerk who, at the time, was willing to place his personal gain before the basic rights of others. Then, I will give him an opportunity to convince me that he will not do that while an employee at my company.

The truth is that most criminals won't be able to convince me of that because our criminal justice system doesn't do anything to help people not be selfish jerks any more. And I'm not going to hire him just to give him a chance if he doesn't convince me.

My company gladly gives money and resources to support and assist with criminal/jerk reform, but I'm not going to hire a jerk and let them destroy the jobs and lives of all his co-workers.

[citation needed]

[Dogtanian]

Google indexes everything, its just you dont get to see the results. The noindex meta tag could really be called "the noshowresults meta tag" Customers get to see all the web, consumers dont. So yes all the fun you had back in the 1970's 80's will come back to haunt you, if your boss pays for a real search.

Are you saying that Google will make available "noindex"-excluded information if people pay for a search?

[citation needed]

And I'd like to hear about the legal implications of retaining and showing information that the owner has specifically and explicitly requested not be indexed via a widely-accepted mechanism that Google themselves use.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[PopeRatzo]

I have never done anything that would be the least bit embarrassing.

Since I've changed my name.

Generalized Solution

[PleaseFearMe]

Or just change your name whenever something bad about you appears on Google.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[hitmark]

Indeed, when one ones had to go to a specific archive and physically look at pages upon pages, one can now enter a name and maybe a date and have results upon result in a matter of seconds, from anywhere on the planet.

It turns a "why?" into a "why not?"...

Alum ???

[ZyBex]

Singular is Alumnus. And what's wrong with "student" ? Damn latin descendants!

Uh... greetings from Portugal...

Face it, life has consequences

[argStyopa]

Personally, I don't even think that they should use the "noindex" tag, either.

Perhaps at some point, someone will get it through their thick skulls that choices often have consequences, and these consequences can come back to bite you in the ass years, even decades later.

Every generation has its wild years, but I believe it really became institutionalized with the Baby Boomers, who ran rampant through the 60's and (largely) would like the rest of us to forget that ever happened. From the relatively trivial use of minor drugs, to trying to murder police officers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Soliah) - one cannot escape the consequences of their decisions.

It seems that today our entire culture wants the government system to warp into a giant "fix my situation" agency, meant to redress the grievances of individuals' pasts - even if self-inflicted. Like to have multiple piercings, tattoos, and wear purple hair? Don't be shocked if the investment bank that had the awesome paying job that you were perfectly qualified for decides to balk once they meet you. If you live below sea level in some crappy tenement, perhaps you should pay EXTRA attention to hurricane warnings looming over your city? If you decide to party your high school years away, and pop out babies while you're a teen - surprise! Odds are that the REST OF YOUR LIFE WILL SUCK (and odds are good that your babies' lives will suck TOO - congratulations, you've managed to ruin more lives than just your own!). Are you poor? Odds are likely that you dropped out of school, are a drug/substance abuser, or made some other shitty life choice that you're paying for now.

I know it's very passe and old fashioned to suggest anything but the modern vogue of heedless narcissism, but there's a REASON our formerly-successful culture praised hard work, self-restraint, delayed gratification, and self-reliance: because these qualities, instilled early, are key indicators toward a LIFETIME of moderate comfort and security. No, that might not mean that you get to have all the fun you want, fucking/smoking/partying your way through your teens and twenties. But if you don't want to spend the NEXT 40 years of your life digging ditches, cleaning drains, or working the fry baskets at McDonald's, you *might* just want to take the long view, champ.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it's very passe and old fashioned to suggest anything but the modern vogue of heedless narcissism, but there's a REASON our formerly-successful culture praised hard work, self-restraint, delayed gratification, and self-reliance: because these qualities, instilled early, are key indicators toward a LIFETIME of moderate comfort and security.

The best predictor of one's income potential is his parent's income. Not "hard work, self-restraint, delayed gratification, or self-reliance". You can be as heedlessly narcissistic as you want--if daddy's got it made, chances are, you will too.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

That is accurate for the uber-rich. However if you come from a modest background, your intelligence and work ethic will play a role in whether or not you climb the ladder.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[FooRat]

It seems that today our entire culture wants the government system to warp into a giant "fix my situation" agency

That's probably at least partly because politicians *advertise* themselves as being such, because it gets them votes and grants them license to take ever more tax money.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[FooRat]

A predictor is not a cause. Your parents being rich doesn't *cause you* to be rich. Large amounts of money don't magically transfer from parents bank accounts to those of their offspring, generation after generation. The *cause* of success is certain *character qualities*, and those *character qualities* are passed down by *parenting*. Your "predictor" is merely a proxy measure for something - e.g. hard work. The fact that you don't get that, makes you part of the problem, and you will never be successful.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Glendale2x]

Personal responsibility is so last century.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Stiletto]

The *cause* of success is certain *character qualities*

That's one of many possible conclusions. A counter-opinion would be that a CAUSE of success is your parents' ability to bankroll your many failures until you hit upon success. Or your parents' ability to pay for your Harvard education where you meet the people who will make you successful despite your lack of work ethic. Or the many businesses your parents own from which you can choose a choice career.

The billionaires who brought themselves up by their own bootstraps and sweat are the very visible minority. They are the ones writing motivational books and fooling you rubes into thinking you have a chance. For every one of them, there are ten mere millionaires who inherited a little family business and never really had to lift a finger the rest of their lives.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[misexistentialist]

The way you learn about responsibility and moderation is precisely through irresponsibility and excess. Those whom religion or the Law have made too timid to take risks aren't likely to be successful. Most if not all successful people have fucked up rather successfully too. The difference between learning from failure and being destroyed by it depends heavily on luck.

While despising the Baby Boomers is healthy, remember the destruction of American industry happened on the Greatest Generation's watch. And that bit of bad luck is what's made subsequent generations' selfishness seem so nihilistic.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Eli Gottlieb]

I'm 20. And by God I wish I could mod you up.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Eli Gottlieb]

While despising the Baby Boomers is healthy, remember the destruction of American industry happened on the Greatest Generation's watch. And that bit of bad luck is what's made subsequent generations' selfishness seem so nihilistic.

Could you please explain? I was never much good at American history, but this sounds interesting.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea of perpetual scarlet letters is sure to be very appealing to the authoritarian personality.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[that IT girl]

But this line of thinking is where the viral "victim mentality" takes its root. "Oh, I was raised by a single mom and I grew up poor, there's no chance for me to be successful--I may as well just give up and stay here in my hole."

The first part of that sentence is true for me, by the way. The second part is not, because I am very smart and hardworking, and I plan to use that to become successful. Mind-bogglingly rich? I highly doubt it. But certainly comfortable.

That goes both ways unless Daddy is SO incredibly rich that the kid can be irresponsible and waste a lot of money, but still have plenty left to live on if he ever pulls his head out of his ass. That may be a valid exception, but it's not the rule. For the vast majority, your life is what you choose to make of it, and nobody else (read: the rest of society) should have to take on the responsibility of supporting you.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Anonymous Coward]

What an asshole thing to say man.

People make mistakes. What does anybody benefit from people getting punished for the indiscretions of youth twenty years after the fact?

The kind of fear that comes with hiring is what we need to get rid of.

Your use of the word "should" in your first sentence set of red lights with me.

Seriously, what an asshole.

What we SHOULD do is devise a new system where it's not so damn hard/exclusive to get and keep a job. Devise a system where people don't need to jump through the excessive hoops, maintain the fantasies, hold onto half-truths, and basically hide their true selves from their coworkers and associates.

Any "shoulds" involved with this situations are just slap-patch let's just forget about it for now fixes and really don't even scratch at the true root of the problems of employment in a capitalistic society.

Seriously, what an asshole.

We should be working together to create a better future for everyone, but you sit on your rocking chair on your porch and tell the kids to get off your fucking lawn.

Fuck you, man. Everybody deserves a second chance.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[Backward Z]

(accidentally posted previous as anonymous)

Are you poor? Odds are likely that you dropped out of school, are a drug/substance abuser, or made some other shitty life choice that you're paying for now."

And to add to my troll, an extra big FUCK YOU to that, man.

SERIOUSLY, WHAT AN INSENSITIVE ASSHOLE.

IT'S THE POOR PEOPLES' FAULT THAT THEY'RE POOR. THEY JUST WEREN'T SMART LIKE ME. SO FUCK 'EM.

Yeah, fuck you, man.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[DaveV1.0]

How about a big "FUCK YOU" to you for making excuses for people who do not value effort, intelligence, or hard work prefering instead to believe they will be a sports superstar, singer, etc. or in some other way get rich quick and easy. Let me guess: All poor people are being held down by "The Man", right?

For most of the poor people I know, this is entirely the case. Hell, it wasn't even that they weren't smat. They just didn't give a fuck to make a fucking effort and try.

Even my sister and brother-in-law. My sister and I started in the same place. I have worked hard, learned skills, and have a good job. My sister is 45 and making US$8.00 per hour as an assitant manger at a fast food restaurant while by brother-in-law sits on his ass, wastes money as a volunteer making videos for the local high school football team, but can't get a real job. Both of them spent their 20s and early 30s smoking pot. Now they are poor white trash.

Everything I have seen, and continue to see, shows me that most people are poor because they think everything should be handed to them on a silver platter and they are not willing to start at the bottom and work their way up. And, it is people like you who propagate that idea.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[tyrus568]

Go on, guys: continue to generalize. Sweeping blanket statements that cover large numbers of people are what breeds scorn, anger, even schadenfreude attitudes among those better off. Sure is easy to write off those less fortunate when you can play 'blame the victim'.

To be clear, everybody's got their own shoes to walk in. Society is constantly in flux and a million variables contribute to the circumstances of each person's life.

As science advances, I would be surprised if it did not become more and more apparent that genes comprise what we call 'talent'. I am not advocating to avoid responsibility of the self and the choices each of us make, but your genetic character has way more influence than you realize in how your life turns out.

The basic example is how two people may see the color blue but internally they may see something entirely different from the other. This effect is pervasive. If someone has lower amounts of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, causing them to have the perception of lower energy levels, life would be harder, no? Yet of course they are treated the same as anyone else. 'Screw them,' you think. 'I could do it, so why can't they?' Maybe it's because they're not you.

Some of the comments I've read on this thread show such a lack of empathy they appear to come from a mindset of solipsism.

Re:Face it, life has consequences

[DaveV1.0]

Empathy for people who CHOOSE to be stupid, or commit crimes? No.

Stop being a dumbass.

Not an easy question

[chazzf]

The standards at college newspapers are not always as stringent as those at major market newspapers. Thinking about the one at my alma mater, it did not employ an ombudsman, rarely fact-checked articles and didn't use tape recorders at interviews. I can think of three situations during my four years where it libeled a student or member of the administration. However, being a small paper with limited circulation and footprint, not much was done about it. Ditto, that matter, for an alternative weekly which accused a fairly prominent administrator of improper sexual conduct using anonymous sources (pretty weaselly actually--"rumours going around etc..."). A quick google-check shows that the Internet is perfectly unaware of any such accusations. What happens if that issue ever gets indexed online? He already got quietly forced out of his job.

A better simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a name like Bob Johnson or Susan Peterson.

Then go nuts!!!!!

Re:A better simple solution

[JoshuaZ]

Actually, that doesn't always help. I know someone who has a very common name that is also the name of a convicted career criminal. He's had at least one boss who called him into the office after "finding out about his past." It took him a while to explain to the idiot boss that he wasn't the only person with that name.

Human Resources

[davidwr]

Human Resources may be concerned about legal liability.

If they hire you for a delivery driver and you got charged with drunk driving 5 years ago and later got the charge and arrest sealed, you can deny it on your employment application.

But if HR finds out and the company hires you anyways and you get drunk and hurt someone on the job, the company is in deep water.

If HR fails to do due diligence and hires you anyways and you get drunk and hurt someone on the job, the company is in deep water.

The question is - what is due diligence? Answer: Whatever a judge or jury says it is. To avoid the possibility of a court case, they may choose to Google you and at the first sign of trouble toss your application.

Hopefully, there will be some court rulings in the next few years that would in most cases clear an employer of negligent hiring if a person has a history but does not have a conviction, currently-pending charge, or other current court supervision like deferred adjudication, recent civil judgment, or current restraining order.

By the way, it's not just campus newspapers that people can search. It's also mainstream newspaper archives.

Re:Human Resources

[xelah]

This is an excellent reason for the UK's Rehabilitation of offenders act. It's illegal to discriminate employment-wise once a conviction is spent - five years for non-custodial sentences, immediately for cautions, longer or forever for anything serious. (There are certain exceptions, however). It's also considered libel to maliciously publish the conviction after that time, and you can lie about it on insurance forms and not be sued for it. (Insurance companies normally don't ask about driving convictions over five years ago, for example).

Re:Human Resources

[chimpo13]

It makes sense to me to have old stuff and long past horror stories out there. People that are growing up now are used to it and I don't think they'll be as "shocked" at the shenanigans of the past. People have gotten drunk underaged and had premarital sex since booze laws and marriage were invented.

When it starts to affect the older generations, they'll be forced to deal with it in a reasonable way. People forget their past difficulties too easily.

They're stuck in a "the best years of life are high school" without thinking "Oh yeah, high school really sucks". Although if you're a jock, then maybe high school was the best time of your life, and I almost feel sorry for you.

College burglary. I don't know anything about the case. Did he steal beer? Who cares? It happened in 1983 and if he continued to be a criminal, he'd more than likely be behind bars.

I'll get off my "who the hell cares" soapbox now and will probably read another post saying the same thing, only better written.

18 is adult but not mature

[davidwr]

Most people's brains mature in their early- to mid-20s. It's one of the reasons why for so long in America you couldn't vote until you were 21.

An 18 year old is a legal adult and should face the consequences of his actions at that time but he shouldn't have to carry that albatross his entire life.

If someone is digging up misdemeanor-or-less level dirt on you more than 5 or 10 years old, that says more about them than you. If it's low-felony-level dirt, anything more than 10-20 years past the end of your parole should be forgiven assuming you've been a good boy.

Re:18 is adult but not mature

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Were i live now, Austria, you are allowed to drink wine and beer at 16 and spirits at 18. You can go to night clubs till midnight when between 16-18. You can get a criminal record from 14. They did just change the age to vote to 16, but that was more of a political thing. They whole you should be allowed to act like a stupid teenager and get away with till your early 20's seems to be more an American thing.

If you are legally an adult that means, by definition, that you should face the consequences of your actions *and* resultant public record of those actions. The world does not need to bend to your lack of maturity considering a lot of other people in the same situation don't do such stupid things. The physical world is far less forgiving. Getting pregnant or crashing a car being an idiot is a common enough thing for younger people to do, and you are stuck with the results of that for the rest of your life.

Get a criminal record with theft in there is a record for life every country I have lived in. You are required to disclose your criminal record to any employer.

I have a 16 year old daughter that is allowed to go out night clubbing etc. I do not expect her not to do dumb things. But i expect her to take responsibility for them when she does.

Building schools can be foolish

[davidwr]

You don't build more med schools unless there will be jobs for the graduates. Ditto other specialized schools.

It's one thing to build liberal arts schools and other where people don't expect a job in a particular field when they graduate. It's quite another to build a professional or trade school knowing good and well there is no need for one.

Re:Building schools can be foolish

[Pinky's Brain]

So you are in favour of central market control then?

Or just in education?

Re:Building schools can be foolish

[fishbowl]

>You don't build more med schools unless there will be jobs for the graduates.

It's a bad example to use med schools, since of all people, a Medical Doctor will have an easier time
than a person in most professions to make a self-employed living. Yes I know there is competition, and yes
I know all about the expensive insurance and facilities a medical practice requires. But in the worst economic times,
a competent Medical Doctor isn't missing any meals or standing in any bread lines. Driving a 7-series beamer and living in a 6 bedroom house in the foothills, maybe not. But come on -- know many doctors who are hurting for work?

Re:Building schools can be foolish

[Rich0]

Actually, med schools are a perfect illustration of the flawed reasoning in the GP post. Clearly society needs more doctors, and yet we have a chokehold on their supply.

By all means have standards for doctors. Screen everybody before allowing them to practice medicine. However, anybody who wants to take courses in medicine and attempt to become a doctor should be free to do so as long as they pay their own way.

We really just need a LOT more schools. That would also drop the cost of education. Anybody willing to pay the bills should be able to attend college. Now, I'm fine with colleges having tracked programs and to get into the higher tracks there would be admission standards. I'm also fine with colleges booting out students who are disruptive in class. That said, if somebody who can barely read and write wants to attend a college, pay their own way, and sit quietly at the back of the class, why should we stop them?

Shifting paradigms

[rlseaman]

As with politics, it is the cover-up that does the real damage. That said, the real issue here is that the school papers in question are in effect republishing these articles many years later. Did it occur to them to even hold a staff meeting on the ethics of - in effect - posting billboards full of stale information about individuals no longer associated with their institution?

In the past it was easier to find information in recent newspapers than in the back issues. Now it is often easier to find information from ancient sources that have been fully archived, than from the recent volumes that may be kept wholly proprietary to paying customers.

• The old paradigm was that information ages, that new information is worth more - and the publishers used this fact to sell physical copy. The old copies were burned or filed in the library stacks, never to be seen again.

• The new paradigm is that information ages, that new information is worth more - and the publishers use this fact to sell electronic copy. The old copies are free - including index.

Surely the best response for fretful alumni is to put their efforts into coming up with good explanations. Society will be better off with a more nuanced attitude toward "youthful indiscretions" than having the family lawyer threaten or bribe your alma mater.

Good luck sweeping actual criminal charges under the rug. It is truly sad, however, that there are those who want to squash their own youthful opinion pieces. Wouldn't a response like "I was young. My opinions today are..." be suitable to almost any occasion?

Great

[Celc]

We are one step closer to killing that "Todays youth"-meme that has been going on for probably well over 2000 years.

Society needs to understand that everyone does stupid shit once in a while and it's, OK. Yes I'm talking you you, judgmental random people (no not you, the other guy, no not him the one in the red shirt yeah HIM!).

Re: Rock Stars

[TaoPhoenix]

Given the downloading situation, I'd say we need a lot more rock stars. How they survive at it is a different question - the need for that music is there.

(Fluke Idea this minute) What about Govt. Stipends for musicians? Don't garage bands get good at surviving on Ramen & generic cola? I'd think a $10,000/year stipend would let bands rent a furnished room in those areas with crushed housing markets, plus Ramen&Cola. A 15/hr week job would pay for the gas to get to gigs.

At 18, you are by law an adult in the USA.

[EWAdams]

(Except with respect to your right to purchase alcohol -- a law is flagrant age discrimination.)

Kids get their records expunged. Adults don't. If you do it, live with it. If you can't live with it, get yourself declared incompetent on grounds of mental defect and live in a secure mental facility; you don't belong in society.

Being young is not a license to do any damn fool thing you like.

Re:At 18, you are by law an adult in the USA.

[Glendale2x]

Even if it's not a matter of a criminal record, things that end up on the internet stand good chance of becoming its own permanent record. My message to kids these days: Don't do anything you don't want (or can't live with) preserved on the internet for eternity.

Incoherence rules

[thethibs]

'I thought that would be better than kind of like sticking it to [the alum] and saying the paper is always right and we can publish anything on the Web we want,' says the paper's editor."

Now that's embarrassing. You'd think the editor of a college paper would have some command of the language.

Reading comprehension maybe??

[RobertLTux]

I'll be sure to relay that information to myself as a 19 year old the next time I'm twelve years in the past.

this would indicate that the person in question is 19+12 = 31 years currently

HELLO MCFLY HELLO ANYONE IN THERE???

Boo hoo

[BeanThere]

If you don't want to be *judged* by society/employers etc. for activities like your stupid boozing and burglary, then don't *do* those activities. Simple. If you are actually doing those activities, then you *should* be judged accordingly - man up and take responsibility for how you behaved. There is no magic "hey but I was young so it doesn't count" - when I was young I had self-control because I understood that my actions had repercussions for my future, and those are also the type of people I'd also now prefer to hire as an employer, not boozers or thieves.

what about my situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was, fairly recently, involved in an "incident" with the local police. Evidently, there was some kind of an altercation on my street between two groups of individuals. One of these said groups ran home and called the police, and unfortunately misidentified my apartment as the source of the other party. I was dragged out of my bed, identified (inaccurately) by the plaintiffs, tossed unceremoniously into a cell, and charged with a felony.

The next morning, I went out, hired a rockstar defense attorney, and had the case thrown out of court within a week. However, the local police blotter still tells the whole sordid tale and prints my full name as having been involved.

Now, being myself a very firm believer in the freedom of the press, I find myself in a difficult situation. What the paper printed was true, and furthermore, it was completely true at the time they printed it (i.e. that I was charged with X). However, this document has persisted on the internet, and is the only result if you search for my full name online.

I know (most of) you are not lawyers, but your thoughts and advice would be interesting nonetheless.

I will preempt two responses, though. First, my lawyer advised me to 'lay low' on anything to do with the case after the charges were dismissed, including not pursuing the return of completely legal items that were seized from my apartment during my arrest, for fear of reprisal by the police or an overzealous prosecutor. Second, I have no interest in establishing my own online presence using my name and drowning out the libel. I value my anonymity.

Re:what about my situation?

[hackel]

The fact that you were wrongly accused is part of the historical record. Ideally, any you should have the right to request a link to a follow-up story explaining what happened. Even without that, however, if someone is going to judge you for *charges* that you were not convicted of, then would you really care about their opinion of you in the first place?

We NEED this...desperately!

[hackel]

The service these college paper archives are providing is a gift to society! We very much need to hold people accountable for their actions, and these things must be easily searchable! Especially for job candidates and other things, employers need to know exactly what kind of person they are employing...and while I am a firm believer in people's ability to grow and change, one cannot run away from one's past! Far, far too many students do entirely idiotic things in college, and then proceed to have well-paying, rewarding careers. This must end! These people need to realize that they are responsible for each and every one of their actions.

Nice to see another generation seeing some of this

[rafikki]

Maybe this will make the HR types that go trawling through facebook profiles and such think twice before judging so quickly.

TRUTH: College degree == More $$$ (maybe)

[helpacoder]

But if you don't want to spend the NEXT 40 years of your life digging ditches, cleaning drains, or working the fry baskets at McDonald's, you *might* just want to take the long view, champ.

If you have a college degree and have the opportunity, you can avoid this fate.

I graduated high school, went to college, and wasn't able to finish and get a degree due to no fault of my own.

But that's O.K. as later I was able to put the key skills I was able learned in college in a paying job so for that I am thankful.

It would help if college wasn't so expensive but it appears it has to be to maintain the socioeconomic 'caste system' between 'white collar' and 'blue collar' jobs here where I live.

When you live in a capitalistic society, you need large amounts of money to 'talk properly'.... :(

Making mistakes

[jnork]

The whole idea of experience is that we make mistakes, and then learn from them.

But if the mistakes follow us for the rest of our days, damning us with every detail of our past, then we chance never being able to apply that hard-won knowledge.

It's easy to say "if you don't want your record hanging around your neck like an albatross, then never do anything stupid." But that's saying "don't make mistakes." Thus "don't learn from experience."

And we don't always know what is a mistake until after we've made it. Predicting the future is chancy at best.

I think it's a mistake to keep this information and make it easily available. I'm not going to make a blanket statement and say no information should be kept, but I don't think that everything should be kept.

For one thing, a lack of mistakes on your record doesn't mean you didn't make any. It merely means that if you did, you didn't get caught. Fred got drunk at a frat party and drove home but managed to make it without incident. Irving got just as drunk at the same party but was unlucky enough to be stopped by police. Both decide to stop drinking in excess and keep their noses clean forevermore. Irving has trouble getting jobs because the campus newspaper ran the story and his employers keep finding it and assuming he's an alcoholic. Both made the same mistake, but one is punished for it for the rest of his life, while the other is not.

Can we have a bit of perspective about this, folks?

Just for the record, I'm about as boring and white-bread as you can get. There's nothing on my academic record. So I'm probably about as objective about this as somebody could get. And no, I have never been drunk. Ever. Never even touched the stuff until I was in my '50s. So I am neither Fred nor Irving in this story (nor the cop nor the campus newspaper). I'm the nerd who stayed up all night in the computer center drinking cola to stay awake.

Re:Making mistakes

[jnork]

I'm the nerd who stayed up all night in the computer center drinking cola to stay awake.

... And then I walked home.

Re:Making mistakes

[DaveV1.0]

You want perspective, I will give you perspective.

For one thing, a lack of mistakes on your record doesn't mean you didn't make any. It merely means that if you did, you didn't get caught. Fred got drunk at a frat party and drove home but managed to make it without incident. Irving got just as drunk at the same party but was unlucky enough to be stopped by police. Both decide to stop drinking in excess and keep their noses clean forevermore. Irving has trouble getting jobs because the campus newspaper ran the story and his employers keep finding it and assuming he's an alcoholic. Both made the same mistake, but one is punished for it for the rest of his life, while the other is not.

So, your argument is that because Fred didn't get caught, Irving shouldn't had to deal with the consequences of getting caught? Really? You actually believe that? I know, why don't we not punish Irving at all because other people didn't get caught. In fact, let's do that with all crimes. People get away with rape, murder, etc every day, so let's not punish anyone because it's not "fair" to the one's that got caught. I have news for you: Life is not fair and people who are caught breaking the law should suffer the consequences.

You say you were neither Fred nor Irving, so who was? Your son? Your brother? Your nephew? Who the fuck do you think should not have to pay the consequences of getting caught driving drunk?

Or, is it just that you are a fucking idiot who thinks that unless everyone gets caught and punished for every crime, no one who is caught should be punished?

Re:Making mistakes

[jnork]

Is that what I said?

I never said that nobody who gets caught making a mistake should have to pay the consequences. You seem to have inferred that for reasons of your own.

The subject here is about youthful mistakes following you for your entire life, long after they would (and probably should) normally have been forgotten. And no, before you start another rant, I don't mean all mistakes. I specifically said that in my original post. I deliberately did not draw the line at anything specific because I didn't not want to start a flame war about what should and should not be acceptable mistakes; there are too many gray areas, and that's why they have courts and judges, to handle situations that are not cut-and-dried. (They don't always do that correctly but that's the intention.)

What you seem to be saying is that if somebody is caught doing something wrong, it should be permanently on his record, no matter how small or inconsequential, and that he should be branded with that mistake for his entire life.

So, your argument is that because Fred didn't get caught, Irving shouldn't had to deal with the consequences of getting caught?

No. But having paid for his crime, should he have to keep paying his entire life, even if he learns from it and never repeats it? You seem to think it's OK for every prospective employer to find the fact of his mistake online and decide he's a drunken loser, when in fact he immediately straightened up.

Really? You actually believe that?

No, I don't. You're putting words into my mouth.

Life is not fair and people who are caught breaking the law should suffer the consequences.

...And then should be persecuted for the rest of their lives, yes, I get it. No crime is too small, no age too young.

You say you were neither Fred nor Irving, so who was? Your son? Your brother? Your nephew? Who the fuck do you think should not have to pay the consequences of getting caught driving drunk?

You seem to be assuming that anybody with an opinion that differs from yours must therefore ipso facto have an axe to grind. There is nobody that I specifically know was or is in that position, and if there were, I would not be claiming they should be let off. Your premise is flawed.

Or, is it just that you are a fucking idiot who thinks that unless everyone gets caught and punished for every crime, no one who is caught should be punished?

Once again, your premise is flawed. What I'm saying is that, once having paid for an ordinary crime, the punishment should not go on forever. I personally consider murder, rape, etc. to be extraordinary crimes, but like I said, there's a justice system to work that out.

By keeping such information easily available and online, and refusing to redact it, the colleges and universities are in the position of punishing the students without having gone through any justice system and without recourse or let-up. And so any students caught in such a fashion are not allowed to learn from their mistakes.

You seem to have a lot of anger to work out. Would you not abuse me with it, please? And calling people names does not help support your position. Taking my words out of context does not actually change what I was saying.

Thanks for your input, Dave. I'd appreciate it if you'd keep it civil next time.

Re:Making mistakes

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, that is what you have said. You refuse to accept the fact that there are continuing consequences, consequences beyond simple legal consequences, to crimes. Other people have the right to not associate with people who commit crimes. And, just doing one's "time" for a crime does not automatically put one back into the good graces of the rest of society.

By the way, burglary and robbery are not "youthful mistakes", especially when one is an adult.

But having paid for his crime, should he have to keep paying his entire life, even if he learns from it and never repeats it?

Yes, if that is what the social consequences of his actions are.

I did not put words in your mouth. I merely distilled your statements down to their bare essence. You may not like to have what you said presented to you in its true form, but that is your problem, not mine.

You seem to be assuming that anybody with an opinion that differs from yours must therefore ipso facto have an axe to grind

You seem to assume that anyone who doesn't have the exact same opinions and weak-will definition of what is a "crime" and "youthful mistakes" is obviously a vicious asshole who is barely above an animal.

The idea that there is "ordinary" crime, and there is "extraordinary" crime is false. You may choose to differentiate crime by such undefined standards, but I will not. Burglary is a crime. Drunk driving is a crime. If one gets caught committing a crime, and it gets reported in the newspaper, regardless of which one or who publishes the paper, that is life and a social consequense of committing the crime. One does not have the right to go back and rewrite history to suit one's self or improve one's image.

The papers are not "punishing the students", they are making facts available. You, in your little bleeding heart world where everyone is a victim and no one truly responsible for anything, think that the facts should be hidden to protect the guilty, but the rest of society has the right to know what is in the public record. Tell me, what is next, censoring the papers so that the stories read "Person A broke into a house, pistol-whipped Person B, and made off with an undisclosed amount of money and possessions?

While you seem to be completely in favor of wholesale re-writing of the past to suit the desires of bad actors, I am not.

  I will treat you however I desire to treat you, got that, Jeff?

Re:Making mistakes

[jnork]

Wow. So... why not treat all criminals the same, if all crimes are unforgivable? Just kill anybody who commits a crime and get it over with. Very Draconian.

You take every point I make and exaggerate it well past what I intend, then argue the opposite point. Nice straw man arguments. Nice black-and-white thinking.

You managed to get a grade school "you're another" defense in with another bout of name-calling, though in this case you put the names in my mouth.

I asked you nicely not to abuse me, and you responded aggressively and abusively. Yes, you can treat me how you please. I can't stop you. But it shows that I don't want to discuss this further with you, or anything else.

Going by your replies, you are a man without compassion, very judgmental, and who lets his anger control him. I'm sorry, I think you'll be very unhappy when you grow up if you don't find a better path.

Re:Making mistakes

[DaveV1.0]

I see you are not below using tactics you accuse me of, you little hypocrite.

So... why not treat all criminals the same, if all crimes are unforgivable?

We should treat all ciminals the same. They should be punished in accordance with the law. If the says the penalty is execution, then execute them.

You, in your infantile stupidity, can not separate out the punishment of the law and the societal reaction to one's behavior. Maybe come out of your mother's basement and experience the real world.

I am already an adult. I am probably older than you are. I have also been a victim of the crimes you so casually dismiss. I have no compassion for criminals.

Every criminal I have come across had some fucking sob story about how it was not their fault the committed their crime. "It wasn't my fault! I couldn't control myself! She was asking for it! I needed money and no one would hire me!" Well, fuck them and their poor sob stories. If you commit a crime and get caught, it is public record. Neither they nor you have the right to go back and change the public record because you don't want anyone to know how fucking selfish and stupid someone was.

You may as well suggest that transcripts, grades, and every other government record be sealed and all newspaper archives burned to protect people who are criminals. You obviously don't want criminals to have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Re:Making mistakes

[jnork]

*shrug* I see no point in answering you. You're just repeating yourself and throwing more personal insults.

You may be older than I, but you still need to grow up.

Re:Making mistakes

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, because coddling criminals and running from one's past and one's personal responsibility is a sign of maturity.

Equal protection doctrine might be an angle

[fishbowl]

You could argue that this discriminates against males, since name-based background searches afford more protection to females, who routinely change their names. You could even say that it only favors the more attractive and/or more "social-norm" conformant females.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[fishbowl]

There is a picture of me, blind drunk, talking to two police officers (who were working for my organization) because I had to arrange for them to take me to the bank with about $65,000 in cash, the drop from the tickets and beer sales of a large event that I was organizing. The picture was published in the local paper and I really thought it was a great shot... and of course since that was before the digital era, I cannot find it.

I'm *proud* of my drunken stupor years. What I don't understand is how your reputation and self-esteem have become so weak that you are worried about what others might think about things that have been recorded about you?

Be *proud* that you stood up against the war, or that you were a marijuana legalization activist, or whatever it is you're hiding from now. Don't be a hypocrite.

Re: Rock Stars

[smoker2]

What about Govt. Stipends for musicians?

My dad used to work a 10 hour day, then travel to gigs with his band at night. No govt. money needed. And that was in the late 50's early 60's. Why are budding musicians so specially deserving of my money now ? Maybe it's that sense of entitlement bubbling up again.

Privacy? WTF?!?

[DaveV1.0]

Once something is published in a FUCKING NEWSPAPER, even if it is a college/school newspaper, it is not longer private. It is public record. Stop being stupdi assholes and then trying to censor the fucking world to keep everyone from knowing what a stupid fucking asshole you really are.

I, for one, welcome our...

[gillbates]

Ever increasingly vindictive society with its everlasting memory.

Not.

American culture is replete with stories of the rebellion of youth. Yet, for some reason, even though our forebears boast of their misdeeds, actually getting caught leaves a permanent scar on one's career.

And this from the generation that was going to change the world.

The world has changed. Either we've all become far more paranoid about the rest of society, or that generation who fomented the sexual revolution has had a change of heart, or perhaps merely become hypocrites.

I have a hard time understanding how a society which makes discrimination against homosexuals illegal (however immoral homosexual acts may be), finds in its purview the audacity to discriminate against people based on decades-old moral infractions. Perhaps it is not a matter of morality, but rather anarchy in law; the homosexuals simply have a better lobby than the former pranksters and drug users.

Instead of worrying about someone finding out what you did years ago, perhaps we should be more concerned that our society is becoming less forgiving, more vindictive, with respect to others. The problem isn't that you had youthful indiscretions; the problem is that your employer thinks they are relevant five, ten, or twenty years later.

Cynical view

[davidwr]

College burglary. I don't know anything about the case. Did he steal beer? Who cares? It happened in 1983 and if he continued to be a criminal, he'd more than likely be behind bars.

They cynical view:

*Person gets caught doing something stupid or illegal a long time ago
*Person hasn't gotten caught since
*Conclusion: They've honed their craft and are very unlikely to get caught

Result:
*If I'm looking to hire someone for something no good, I want this guy
*If I'm looking for a responsible person, I want to avoid him

I did say that was the cynical view. It's not the realistic view. If an HR department thinks like this, you don't want to work for them anyways.

there's a very apropos saying ...

[Tumbleweed]

"Removing something from the Internet is like peeing in a pool. Once it's in there, it's IN there."
-from some sitcom back in the day

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[centuren]

I was discussing tattoos with a friend, and when I mentioned forearm tattoos, she pointed out that forearm tattoos can affect future employment, otherwise she would have full sleeves done already.

After thinking about that for a moment, I pointed out that our choices affect the direction of our lives. Her last job was a mindless office job (think Happy Times in "Dead Like Me", Office Space, etc). If she's someone who sees having her arms beautifully tattooed, who's to say it won't have a positive effect on her life? It might close some doors, fairly or not, in something like the corporate world, but it might lead her to a career she loves and may not have discovered otherwise.

I'm not sure how this story fits in with college indiscretions not fading into the past, except maybe a zen-like acceptance that they were choices that shape your life now, and if you don't get that promotion as a result, it might be your drunken, half-naked, publicly urinating 19 year old self sending a message from the past that you're in the wrong job.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[MikeFM]

I think it should all be online so that everyone is on equal grounds. We've all done and said stupid things and we need to learn not to be so judgmental of each other. My experience is that it's often those that judge the harshest that did the worst but have managed to keep the evidence well hidden.

Seriously, should I never run for President because someone can Google my stupid ideas from when I was 15 and tell everyone? Who didn't have stupid ideas when they were young? Telling kids not to discuss things in public forums because it could come back to haunt them is denying them a good method of developing.

blah.

[vegiVamp]

This is just the modern-day equivalent of your mother showing baby pictures and telling embarrasing stories to your friends.

It may not be fun, but it "builds character", for want of a better word - it shows that you're human, and make mistakes just like the next guy. If I gotta pick a new colleague, given equal skill I'll go for the one who looks like more fun.

And, like many have said before me, if a prospective employer won't hire you because you've been skinnydipping when you were young, you'll be much happier working for someone who doesn't have their head stuck quite as far up their arse anways. Bad breath, yanno.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[lsatenstein]

In the Canadian Justice system, we can petition the courts to expunge a guilty verdict for a misdemeanor (shoplifting) if the person has been clean for 7 years. The information will no longer be public record. Surely such information should have been expunged from the records for something that happened as a teenager or very very early 20's in the life of a young person. We also have a young offenders act that blocks all publications.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[metamatic]

Seriously, should I never run for President because someone can Google my stupid ideas from when I was 15 and tell everyone?

You should never run for President as a Democrat.

Apparently it's OK to be an ex-bankrupt ex-coke-fiend who went AWOL, for example, but only if you're a Republican.

Re:once something has happened no unhappening for

[MikeFM]

Unfortunately I'm neither liberal or conservative so I doubt I could run as either Republican or Democrat. I'd try to reason through problems and look for real solutions rather than following party lines so everyone would hate me. I guess programmers don't make good politicians because we're used to actually solving problems.

Anyone else think that government is like one of those software projects that just keeps going and going and costing more and more and taking bigger and bigger meetings and nothing ever gets done?