In the present day, it has become
so easy and common for individuals to share information publicly that we tend
not to think about it in our day to day interactions with technology.
Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, comment sections in news sites, even this
very blog platform we are posting to, are fueled by us sharing our thoughts and
experiences on their services to drive, albeit it with varying degrees of
anonymity. Besides the information we choose to share ourselves, information
pertaining to us posted by others, whether through comments on twitter or
through news blogs or articles, are easily available and freely indexed by
search engines such as Google.
To some
of us today, this may not seem like much of a concern. So what if that stupid
joke you made in the 10th grade and posted on twitter is offensive?
You can go back and delete it at a moment’s notice. A picture from two weeks
ago you accidentally posted shows you at a party doing a keg stand even though
you are not 21? Easy, you can take it off your wall in only a few clicks. These
examples of information from your personal life that you might not
representative of your actual behavior existing on the internet are easily
rectified, as the posts are under your control. The issue arises when you are
not in control of the information about yourself you would rather not have see
the light of day.
The Right
to be Forgotten is a new concept for the web that has come out of European
court rulings on what control individuals have over misrepresentative
information about themselves on the internet, things that are, “inadequate,
irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which
they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed.”[1]
The ruling stems from a case where newspaper notices from 1998 about a Spanish
lawyer’s property auctions to pay off his debts were listed on Google even though
the lawyer managed to rectify his situation. Courts ruled in 2010 the paper did
not have to remove the notices because they were factual reporting, but Google
could not link to them, as, bearing with the ruling, the information was no
longer relevant to the lawyer’s financial state considering the period of time
passed.
Issues
arise with this when the consideration of freedom of speech versus the right to
privacy is brought up. In our society, freedom of speech is cherished. However,
European nations view privacy as a much more intrinsic right, stemming from
their extensive experience with fascist and communist governments which
implemented extreme state surveillance. Google is hesitant when handling Right
to be Forgotten request, they do not want to hide information relating to public
officials or other influential figures from the public, but they also want to
respect reasonable requests for privacy. And in any case, the request is only
processed for that countries version of Google, Google.com still lists all
results the same.
We have
become so accustomed to the idea of the World Wide Web, a completely unadulterated
shared global experience, that we are unprepared for the changes systems like
this will bring. While I’m sure most of us would greatly appreciate the ability
to hide information that could be harmful to us but is no longer relevant
should we have the need, the amalgamation of all sources of knowledge is what
we love about the web. If Google has to start hiding information from the
masses based on the requests of those it pertains to, how will we be able to
know what the real story about anything or anyone is? How will the free and
open web continue if information is hidden at every search?
No comments:
Post a Comment