Most people, even in the incarceration capital of the world, make it to their 30s without being arrested at all. This makes the event (somewhat) notable, doesn't it? Notable things are the things we talk about.
I think your point is that this crime is trivial enough to warrant expiration, but then where do you draw the line? I believe that the published lists of sex offenders is abusive and contrary to what are supposed to be American values, but a moratorium on talking about it at all seems equally unjust. Who decides how much time must pass before being bankrupted is no longer relevant when talking about a businessman? Do we have a list of crimes, or does this situation only apply to rich people, each of whom can decide for themselves when their reputation should no longer be marred by their actions? Should a convicted drug dealer be able to not only legally conceal the fact on his resume, reasoning that he hasn't dealt drugs in a while, but also be able to prosecute anyone who reveals the fact to his prospective employer? How about a thief applying to a security firm?
The fact is, his complaint is that a salient business event in his life is affecting his business. Isn't this exactly as it should be? How is this not a ludicrous complaint?