Google and the "Right to be Forgotten" in the EU
Posted by FlukeMan2 9 years, 9 months ago to Technology
The EU as passed measures to force Google (and others including but not limited to Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo...) to censor search results. This is all under the banner of the "Right to be Forgotten." If someone doesn't like something said about them on the Web, then they can demand that Google remove it from their search results. It's still on the Web. You just can't find it using any major search engine. This is how the EU gets away thinking they haven't violated free speech (when they have). When a journalist's article has been censored out of search results there is no appeal process for them. They might not even know that it happened.
The major argument behind this is that if someone does something stupid and regrets it, then they should be able move on without it haunting them for the rest of their life. In other words they have the right to be forgotten. They put it out there as some form of the right to privacy. This is like saying the right to free speech is the same as the right to be listened to. Just because you are free to say what you want doesn't mean you have the right to an audience or people willing to support you. Likewise just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right censor what's said or remembered about you. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds: censoring memories. Even if that were possible, it wouldn't be ethical.
Don't get me wrong. I've done things I regret and wouldn't like to be at the top of the search results of my name, but the solution is not to pass a law censoring search results. The solution is to become a more mature and forgiving society that recognizes that people do dumb stuff and can change. There's also a need for more maturity when using the Internet. If you share something with people, then they could pass it on. If you share it with the world then there's no need for anyone to pass it on. You can't demand the world forgets what you did or said. Think twice before you post something. You can regret your actions and seek forgiveness, but you can't demand it. In the end the solution is not EVER going to come from a government.
The people most likely to use this ability to censor the memory of the Internet (via search results) are the very politicians who put it into play.
What do all of you have to say regarding the Google and the EU's "Right to be Forgotten?"
The major argument behind this is that if someone does something stupid and regrets it, then they should be able move on without it haunting them for the rest of their life. In other words they have the right to be forgotten. They put it out there as some form of the right to privacy. This is like saying the right to free speech is the same as the right to be listened to. Just because you are free to say what you want doesn't mean you have the right to an audience or people willing to support you. Likewise just because you have a right to privacy doesn't mean you have the right censor what's said or remembered about you. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds: censoring memories. Even if that were possible, it wouldn't be ethical.
Don't get me wrong. I've done things I regret and wouldn't like to be at the top of the search results of my name, but the solution is not to pass a law censoring search results. The solution is to become a more mature and forgiving society that recognizes that people do dumb stuff and can change. There's also a need for more maturity when using the Internet. If you share something with people, then they could pass it on. If you share it with the world then there's no need for anyone to pass it on. You can't demand the world forgets what you did or said. Think twice before you post something. You can regret your actions and seek forgiveness, but you can't demand it. In the end the solution is not EVER going to come from a government.
The people most likely to use this ability to censor the memory of the Internet (via search results) are the very politicians who put it into play.
What do all of you have to say regarding the Google and the EU's "Right to be Forgotten?"
The Official Google Blog
"Searching for the right balance"
Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer on Friday, July 11, 2014
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/s...
"When you search online, there’s an unwritten assumption that you'll get an instant answer, as well as additional information if you need to dig deeper. This is all possible because of two decades worth of investment and innovation by many different companies. Today, however, search engines across Europe face a new challenge—one we’ve had just two months to get our heads around. That challenge is figuring out what information we must deliberately omit from our results, following a new ruling from the European Court of Justice."
"This means that The Guardian could have an article on its website about an individual that’s perfectly legal, but we might not legally be able to show links to it in our results when you search for that person’s name. It’s a bit like saying the book can stay in the library, it just cannot be included in the library’s card catalogue."
"It’s for these reasons that we disagree with the ruling. That said, we obviously respect the court’s authority and are doing our very best to comply quickly and responsibly. It’s a huge task as we've had over 70,000 take-down requests covering 250,000 webpages since May. So we now have a team of people individually reviewing each application, in most cases with limited information and almost no context."
"The examples we've seen so far highlight the difficult value judgments search engines and European society now face: former politicians wanting posts removed that criticize their policies in office; serious, violent criminals asking for articles about their crimes to be deleted; bad reviews for professionals like architects and teachers; comments that people have written themselves (and now regret). In each case, someone wants the information hidden, while others might argue it should be out in the open."
"We’re also doing our best to be transparent about removals: for example, we’re informing websites when one of their pages has been removed. But we cannot be specific about why we have removed the information because that could violate the individual’s privacy rights under the court's decision."
"It’s a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary, as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer."
The EFF
"Rights That Are Being Forgotten: Google, the ECJ, and Free Expression"
BY DANNY O'BRIEN AND JILLIAN YORK, JULY 8, 2014
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/ri...
O'Brien and York explain how the ruling won't work and what will happen.
"Every step down the road of censorship is damaging. And when each step proves—as it did with copyright—to be ineffective in preventing the spread of information, the pressure grows to take the next, more repressive, step."
"Online censorship can almost always be circumvented. Turkey’s ban on Twitter was equally useless, but extremely worrying nonetheless. Even Jordan’s draconian censorship of news sites that fail to register for licenses has been bypassed using Facebook...but should be condemned on principle regardless. And a fundamentally unenforceable law is guaranteed to be the target of calls for increasingly draconian enforcement, as the legal system attempts to sharpen it into effectiveness."
"Restrictions on free expression need to be considered, in public, by the courts, on a case-by-case basis, and with both publishers and plaintiffs represented, not via an online form and the occasional outrage of a few major news sources. And online privacy needs better protection than censorship, which doesn't work, and causes so much more damage than it prevents."