If someone is charged with and found innocent of a crime, you can't just remove that record. If someone else later finds an account of them being accused, they need a way to credibly assert that they were found innocent. Alternately if they are convicted and served their sentence, they might need to prove that in the future.
Sometimes people are unfairly ostracized for their past, but I think a policy of deleting records will do more harm than good.
Or in the case of, down the road, repeating an offense. The judge sees you had an issue in the past, was good for a while, then repeated, suggesting an event or something has happened or that the individual has lost their motivation to stay reformed. Sentencing to time for the crime but then also being able to assist the individual in finding help to get them back on track. We have the systems in place to do this, we just don’t.
Also, when applying for a loan, being a sex offender shouldn’t matter. When applying for a mortgage across the street from an elementary school, it should.
The only way to have a system like that is to keep records, permanently, but decision making is limited.
> Also, when applying for a loan, being a sex offender shouldn’t matter. When applying for a mortgage across the street from an elementary school, it should.
Should it though? You can buy a piece of real estate without living there, e.g. because it's a rental property, or maybe the school is announced to be shutting down even though it hasn't yet. And in general this should have nothing to do with the bank; why should they care that somebody wants to buy a house they're not allowed to be in?
Stop trying to get corporations to be the police. They're stupendously bad at it and it deprives people of the recourse they would have if the government was making the same mistake directly.
Yeah I agree, a corporation should not only not care, they should be actively prevented from being allowed to make discriminations base on anything outside of whether they can pay or not. If they sense a potential other problem, at worst it should be reported to police or some other governmental authority, it simply isn't their business otherwise.
To me any other viewpoint inevitably leads to abuse of one group or class or subset of society or another. If they are legally allowed to discriminate in some ways, they will seek to discriminate in others, both in trying to influence law changes to their benefit and in skirting the law when it is convenient and profitable.
There should be ways for a corporation to vet based on severity of the role to match the severity of the candidate, backgrounds included. Cases like, you wouldn’t want to hire a CFO who has been convicted of fraud. Likewise you wouldn’t want a president who’s been convicted of crimes either.
But if you don’t need access to sensitive information, you aren’t dealing with corporate funds or accounting, just a cog in the machine, I don’t think it should matter.
The issue is now, even the smallest issue from years ago is flagged by an AI, which in turn rejects you from a downstream workflow, which doesn’t put you in the hiring managers lap.
>Also, when applying for a loan, being a sex offender shouldn’t matter. When applying for a mortgage across the street from an elementary school, it should.
> If someone is charged with and found innocent of a crime, you can't just remove that record. If someone else later finds an account of them being accused, they need a way to credibly assert that they were found innocent.
Couldn't they just point to the court system's computer showing zero convictions? If it shows guilty verdicts then showing none is already proof there are none.
The search deals were already not exclusive. The real impact will be the other businesses (especially GenAI) where Google will be barred from having exclusivity clauses in its contracts.
Genes are what define the instructions guiding biological development and so could be considered to be what defines the intention. With Morris syndrome, factors prevent the genetic instructions from guiding development as defined by the genes. With Morris syndrome, the lack of androgen receptors leads to the genetic sexual development, as guided by the genes, of a male to be suppressed. Swyer syndrome also commonly arises from spontaneous mutations (not being passed from parental genetic material) and can have malignant consequences. A large percentage of those with the condition develop gonadoblastoma.
I'm referring to how genes modulate development according to their set of instructions. The way that these genetic instructions are set to be executed can be considered their intention. I'm being liberal in my use of the word "intention" here, but I don't think your absurdist take on my wording was in good faith, so to speak, or constructive.
The state of the universe (including biological facts) has no intentions, i don't know what you are trying to say here or what else you would mean when you say "Intention". It sounds like the sayings of someone who believes in an higher order of things.
Only if you count 1.9.2 as the beginning. What is being talked about is Unicode by default and maybe Unicode tooling (i.e. can correctly iterate over emojis and not just bytes)
Sometimes people are unfairly ostracized for their past, but I think a policy of deleting records will do more harm than good.