And think about it in the longer term (talking from a Brit perspective here). In ye olden times, when everything was made of wood, people could still go down to their library and look through newspaper archives and find out stuff about what you'd done, however 'spent' the conviction. (OK, the UI wasn't great, but those were the days when local papers would reliably have loads of reports of magistrates courts, so the content was probably better. My brother and his friends, who often made an appearance, called it "Stars In Their Eyes".)
It is not illegal for newspapers to report past, spent convictions if you should make your way back into the public eye. There has never been a right to 'privacy' in this way. There still isn't, except for Google's search index.
In general, privacy laws of this kind - which we know all too much about in this country - help the powerful. (I don't notice any blacklisted trade unionists taking out superinjunctions - just Trafigura[0] covering up an ecological atrocity and rich men concealing their infidelity[1][2].)
It is not illegal for newspapers to report past, spent convictions if you should make your way back into the public eye. There has never been a right to 'privacy' in this way. There still isn't, except for Google's search index.
In general, privacy laws of this kind - which we know all too much about in this country - help the powerful. (I don't notice any blacklisted trade unionists taking out superinjunctions - just Trafigura[0] covering up an ecological atrocity and rich men concealing their infidelity[1][2].)
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafigura#Super-injunction
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389841/Ryan-Giggs-n...
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13190424