View Single Post
Old 11-04-2014, 10:12 AM   #15
ApK
Award-Winning Participant
ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,390
Karma: 68329346
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ, USA
Device: Kindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billi View Post
The case that lead to this law was a man who went bancrupt 15 years ago and still today, 15 years later, the first google link was to a report about his bancruptcy.
If finding that search hit somehow did actual harm that SHOULD NOT have happened, like being denied credit or a job when a 15 year old bankruptcy should NOT have been considered, then a more reasonable law to address that should been concerning the acts of the party who did the harm, e.g., make them show why they did what they did, where they got their info, etc.

Do the rest of you find this law as disturbing as I do?
Any one think this was a good idea? I'd love to hear the reasons.

Last edited by ApK; 11-04-2014 at 10:18 AM.
ApK is offline   Reply With Quote