The Right to Be Forgotten
July 20, 2019
Prosperous societies are built on rights. We have the right to due process, the right to bear arms. Yet no right to wrestle bears in 20 states. Losing comes with additional costs. But as the internet replaces both recollection and hall of records, a new right comes into focus: the right to be forgotten.
Back when the information highway was little more than a dirt road, no one could have anticipated it leading to … well … everywhere. Though unlike hard surfaces, this path also travels through time. No drifting sands blanket the trail plotting where we’ve been, what we’ve endured, who we were. Such was the case a few years ago when a man in Spain sued Google over dated search engine results tied to his name: legal notices of a tax foreclosure from the ’90s. The European Union’s Court of Justice sided with the man ruling “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive” data must be deleted from it results upon public request. Over 826,000 have been made to this day.
(Photo Credit: The Lazy Artist Gallery [CC0], Pexels.com)
Only proposed in the States, it’s a controversial idea, but technology has changed the way we think. With the help of search engines we’re able to gather intel without hours of toil. And like most things that make life easier, we’ve come to rely on them. So much so that they’re often our only means of due diligence. Simple. Maybe too simple.
Experience has conditioned us to believe the most pertinent information can be found on the first page of results. In the situation above, an algorithm may have suggested this tax issue that has long been settled is crucial – or even defining – leaving us with two important questions. The first, addressed by Joseph Steinberg in Forbes: Does the internet undermine existing privacy laws in the US regarding sealed or expunged records? Second, should search engines be given carte blanche to determine what matters about each of us?
A right to be forgotten could address both of these. However, many fear it would infringe on other established freedoms. They expect a right to know. Looking beyond the extremes at either side of the argument, maybe the real contention isn’t what can be uncovered as much as how easily it’s revealed. Previously, the divide between past and present was guarded by yellowing pages and microfiches. Information was out there, yet discovery involved more than a flitting fancy. Words were endeared by memory. Ink laid the foundation for permanence while passing thoughts faded with time. Errant remarks were considered with the emotion and improv of the moment. And slowly their improprieties made way for personal growth and redemption. It was a system flawed to perfection. But when every gaffe is archived online, they follow us like a scarlet letter. We lose an essential part of humanity – the ability to forget.
(Photo Credit: Alavaro Serrano [CC0], Unsplash.com)
Looking at how such a right might clash with free speech and press, we should consider that removing content from a search engine is not the same as erasing it. They are not content creators but aggregators. Directories internet users consult instead of going straight to sources of information. Since its inception in Europe, citizens have made requests that all sorts of things be delisted. Each is weighed individually with due consideration to public interest, nature of content. There are victims of crime seeking escape from the label; wrongly accused wanting to clear their digital records; businessmen and politicians trying to conceal past misdeeds; a myriad of different circumstances.
Navigating the process begins with this form. Submissions then go into a queue where they await judgement like those highlighted here. You’ll note that, depending on location, some of the decisions adhere to the UK’s Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, so you likely wouldn’t see identical results in the States. In some cases we may not want to. But the Right to be Forgotten could prove a useful tool in balancing public interest with personal privacy.
(Disclaimer: I am not qualified to give, nor should this be considered legal counsel.)
