Haunted by old traffic violations
October 23, 2017 11:26 AM Subscribe
How concerned should I be that two old (15-plus years ago) traffic violations show up in the first page of Google results for my name? This is thanks to one of those annoying websites that scrape public records.
The two traffic violations are relatively minor but moving violations. And like I said, they are old. It bothers me, though, that this "CRIMINAL RECORDS!" result shows up in the first page of results when you google my rather unusual name.
Should I pay the fifty bucks to have the traffic violations expunged or sealed at my local court system? In the grand scheme of things, how big of a deal is this? I'm concerned about how it might look to potential employers.
I've tried emailing the website to have my name opted out and my message gets returned as undeliverable. They have no mention of an opt-out policy on their website.
Just looking for some perspective on this--thanks!
The two traffic violations are relatively minor but moving violations. And like I said, they are old. It bothers me, though, that this "CRIMINAL RECORDS!" result shows up in the first page of results when you google my rather unusual name.
Should I pay the fifty bucks to have the traffic violations expunged or sealed at my local court system? In the grand scheme of things, how big of a deal is this? I'm concerned about how it might look to potential employers.
I've tried emailing the website to have my name opted out and my message gets returned as undeliverable. They have no mention of an opt-out policy on their website.
Just looking for some perspective on this--thanks!
Paying the court to expunge your record won't take existing records off the Internet. These sites aren't updated daily from some government feed. (Certainly not in the "taking stuff off the site" direction anyway)
Pretty much the only guaranteed solution is to make other pages with your name overwhelm the results you don't want people to see, pushing those results to page 2.
posted by wierdo at 12:10 PM on October 23, 2017 [4 favorites]
Pretty much the only guaranteed solution is to make other pages with your name overwhelm the results you don't want people to see, pushing those results to page 2.
posted by wierdo at 12:10 PM on October 23, 2017 [4 favorites]
I'm concerned about how it might look to potential employers.
It looks like you committed two minor traffic violations fifteen years ago.
it might matter if you were applying for highly visible upper-level positions where your employer would expect members of the public to be finding your name on their website and googling it? though actually, the higher profile the position the less people seem to care about this stuff. If it's not a DUI or a violent crime or fraud, it's not generally considered a reputational concern in my experience.
any professional background check company will not rely on google hits and third-party websites when reporting back to employers; they only use those aggregator websites as a shortcut to point them in the direction of the actual court records of the relevant jurisdiction. which aren't and shouldn't be opt-out-of-able, but generally, people who bother with these checks only care about serious offenses or patterns of behavior or negative media coverage. two isn't enough for a pattern.
employers or HR reps who don't do formal full background checks, just a little prurient googling, are hard to predict because they're just random people without objective standards, just curiosity. but if it wouldn't alarm you to see those results about someone else, it probably won't alarm an employer about you.
posted by queenofbithynia at 12:16 PM on October 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
It looks like you committed two minor traffic violations fifteen years ago.
it might matter if you were applying for highly visible upper-level positions where your employer would expect members of the public to be finding your name on their website and googling it? though actually, the higher profile the position the less people seem to care about this stuff. If it's not a DUI or a violent crime or fraud, it's not generally considered a reputational concern in my experience.
any professional background check company will not rely on google hits and third-party websites when reporting back to employers; they only use those aggregator websites as a shortcut to point them in the direction of the actual court records of the relevant jurisdiction. which aren't and shouldn't be opt-out-of-able, but generally, people who bother with these checks only care about serious offenses or patterns of behavior or negative media coverage. two isn't enough for a pattern.
employers or HR reps who don't do formal full background checks, just a little prurient googling, are hard to predict because they're just random people without objective standards, just curiosity. but if it wouldn't alarm you to see those results about someone else, it probably won't alarm an employer about you.
posted by queenofbithynia at 12:16 PM on October 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I think most employers won't care. I did hiring for a while and we didn't even glance at those kinds of sites; everyone is aware they're super-scammy. We had criminal records checks run by the state police, not some hack with a website, and a professional background check. (I feel like including scammy "mug shot" websites as part of your hiring process might even open you up to liability, since they might remove a serious criminal conviction for money, leaving you in trouble if you hired someone with a sex crime to work with children; and they clearly frequently harass and extort innocent people, so you might unfairly discriminate against qualified candidates.)
Anyway, when we googled potential employees we were looking for press coverage and public-facing social media -- is their twitter account full of dogwhistle racism? Then NOPE. Do they run a tumblr fansite for pancakes? Whatever, that's fine.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:08 PM on October 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
Anyway, when we googled potential employees we were looking for press coverage and public-facing social media -- is their twitter account full of dogwhistle racism? Then NOPE. Do they run a tumblr fansite for pancakes? Whatever, that's fine.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:08 PM on October 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
You should be glad it's only traffic tickets. A lot of people have much worse things to live down.
I wouldn't be concerned at all.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 AM on October 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't be concerned at all.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:38 AM on October 24, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older These songs have no title, just words and a tune | A convoluted question about iphones, wi-fi... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Next, consider what effect that will have. Having a record sealed or expunged might be a good idea for various reasons, but will it affect the specific website you're concerned about? How often does that website update, and does its functionality (which is probably rudimentary) include any kind of removal mechanism? If it's merely scraping to add content, then once you're in, you're in. A separate but related consideration is that the website probably doesn't have any obligation to remove a description of a record that was public when the description was published, even if that record is subsequently sealed or expunged.
Those websites are pernicious. Some are outright scams (mysteriously, a second website can get your record removed for $79.99!). Other times there's some crusader behind the wheel who earnestly believes he or she is providing a public benefit. I've asked on behalf of clients for some very, very good reasons, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
posted by cribcage at 12:08 PM on October 23, 2017 [2 favorites]