Being Forgotten on Google - Essay Example

BEING FORGOTTEN ON GOOGLE by As a concept, ‘the right to be forgotten’ has a wide audience today especially after its practical application with the EU. The issue arises from the personal desires of some individuals towards the determination of the development of lives in autonomous ways. Google has received more than 100, 000 requests to remove certain search results that have led to the periodic or perpetual stigmatization because of the performance of a specific action in the past (Mantelero, 2013:232). Due to the nature of such a concept, in terms of practical approaches, there has been some considerable controversy. Google has been hauled in front of European data regulators on the issue of being forgotten. The concept has been established as a right to the status of international ‘universal’ recognition with respect to the right of access to existing information (Mayes, 2014). The controversy is partly due to the prevailing vagueness of current rulings such as the ECJ’s ruling concerning a Spanish man who sued a national newspaper website and Google Spain (Arthur, 2014). Concern emanates from the concerns on the impacts that such rulings portend in reference to another universal right – freedom of expression. An important aspect is the subsequent interactions with the right to privacy, in addition to whether creating the ‘right to be forgotten’ decreases internet quality through such steps as censorship or the rewriting of history (Fleischer, 2011). The firm entity under review – Google, Inc – has in the past followed through with this concept deleting data because of proof of copyright violations as well as in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Google Inc., 2014). Being ‘forgotten on Google’ has become one of the latest concerns in our information age where the freedom of expression, unregulated Internet and our desire to learn from and share on the Internet is greater than ever. Accordingly, in current modern contexts, an increase in internet use and daily application has become a way of life given the different avenues in which individuals are able to socialize regardless of the time and distance factors. Thus, it is understandable that without such technology and technological input life as it is would be quite different (Bernal, 2011). In the 21st century, computing and communication have become critical aspects on which daily interaction and socialization are based upon. In line with this aspect, current business enterprises are hence significantly influenced in terms of management, capacity building and logistical contexts. Pertinent to this discussion are the issues of data/ information privacy, means or manner of data utility and the overall purpose/ function of data accrued. Hence, not only is this applicable to individual/ personal data but also to corporate-entity information. Interweaved into this debate is the influence of such issues on the overall aspect of policy formulation given the emotive discussions concerning privacy, freedom of information and surveillance amongst other public concerns (Coliver, 1992; Mantelero, 2013). The concept is traceable to 1995 when was adopted through the –European Data Protection Directive with the aim of regulating the processing aspects of individual/ personal data (Directive 95/46EC). This effectively entrenched the concept as a critical component of contemporary human rights law, hence its importance to individual and organizational contexts. This is perhaps the reason why such policy measures are of critical importance to existing organizational entities in terms of operational procedures, the right to freedom of expression and above all, the right to privacy of information (Mitrou & Maria, 2012:30). As Van Hoecke and Ost (2000) aver, under current legal frameworks, this concept is definitively articulated to be reflective of the claim(s) by an individual(s) to have specific data deleted so that third parties cannot trace and/ or access them. With respect to such legal frameworks, this concept allows individuals to successfully have data about themselves deleted from specific existing internet records (Van Hoecke & Ost, 2000:233). This is to be however distinguished from the ‘right to privacy’ that is majorly founded on the distinction that individually, this right is applicable to information that is not yet known to the public. Rather, the concept does specifically focus on information that is within public domain and subsequently deleted to prevent third-party access (Solon, 2014). As Arthur (2014) avers, the issue of the right to information privacy vis-à-vis the right to freedom of expression still elicits a heated debate in the contemporary arena. This is in relation to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling that alluded to the fact that while the right to privacy was supreme, this had specific allowances or limitations depending on which side of the debate on is on (Arthur, 2014). Hence, the court’s ruling was indicative of the fact that within the larger European Union, there exists a ‘right to be forgotten’ with specific application to search engines like Google Inc. Thus, individuals have the right to ask for the removal of their information from existing search indexes (Rosen, 2012). Google Inc., as a global entity is unique in terms of its case study aspects as varying debates have been founded on different issues that it faces in the contemporary era. This is influential in understanding why different jurisdictions enact and subsequently implement key policy measures. As Streitfeld (2014) alludes, there are limitations in terms of application within different jurisdictions based on the general inability in requirement of the removal of information held by companies operating on a global scale. In this relation, the types of contextual effects experienced within Europe are uniquely different from those of other national jurisdictions (Streitfeld, 2014). This is influenced by the lack of a global network, which would allow individuals to control their own personal online image, standing and personal respect. Hence, this gives a background for the prevailing nature in which recognition of the concept is predominantly focused within the EU because of the Directive 95/46/EC (Orlowski, 2014). Article 12 provides the legal basis upon which individual rights to internet protection are provided. Subsequent amendment was in the form of a draft regulation (European Data Protection), which superseded the directive and provided for specific protection of individual privacy rights (European Commission, 2012). In Germany, the right of offenders to rehabilitation is taken into consideration in terms of the concept of the ‘right to forget.’ The fact that Wikimedia Foundation received a ‘cease and desist’ letter greatly influenced how internet-based entities would operate after this. In this regard, previous criminals were provided with the right to protection of their privacy (likeness and name) from unwanted publicity (Kravets, 2011). However, technical issues arose because Wikimedia is an American entity and is protected in terms of consideration of the national constitution’s First Amendment. This is in reference to both the freedom of the press and freedom of speech (Hendel, 2012; Mayes, 2014). Comparatively, South America’s Argentina is unique to the discussion at hand given the prevalence of celebrity lawsuits against both Google, Inc and Yahoo. The celebrities sued the companies to remove specific search results and remove certain photo links. There is a continuous debate given the unique nature of the concept under focus (Buenos Aires Herald, 2013, Carter 2013:22). In the U.S. for instance, while the First Amendment is critical to subsequent policy making, the concept of ‘right to be forgotten’ is portrayed through two key cases, i.e. the ‘Melvin v. Reid’ and ‘the Sidis v. FR Publishing Corp (Whitman, 2004:1162; Bell & Gemmell, 2009:26). Pertaining to the first case, the court ruling was informed by the reasoning that a person has the right to happiness while living a life of rectitude. The right further protects against unwarranted attacks on individual reputation, character and social standing (Friedman, 2007:220; Mayer-Schönberger, 2009:118). In conclusion, different contexts prevail, which are influential and are significantly influenced by the concept of the ‘right to forget/ be forgotten.’ Notably, this concept is most entrenched within the EU as provided by the European Data Protection Regulation Act. Irrespective of the fact that it is legally conceptualized within this jurisdiction, varying criticisms still prevail. Criticisms stem from the idea that the concept would eventually affect and/ or restrict the right to freedom of speech. Thus, because majority of nations protect the existing strong domestic laws regarding freedom of speech, there is a great challenge as to how best reconcile this fundamental right, with the concept at hand. It is important to note that due to the different jurisdictional contexts within current society, global entities such as Google, Inc. can be affected vis-à-vis or not in terms of business conduct, information access, retrieval and editing, as well as alignment with prevailing jurisdictional laws, rules and regulations. References Arthur, C 2014, Explaining the ‘right to be forgotten’ – the newest cultural shibboleth. The Guardian [Technology - Google]. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/14/explainer-right-to-be-forgotten-the-newest-cultural-shibboleth Arthur, C 2009, Wikipedia sued by German killers in privacy claim. The Guardian [London]. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/nov/13/wikipedia-sued-privacy-claim Bell, C G & Gemmell, J 2009, Total recall: how the E-memory revolution will change everything. New York, N.Y.: Dutton. Bernal, P A 2011, ‘A Right to Delete?’ European Journal of Law and Technology, 2(2). Buenos Aires Herald, 2013, Search engines not responsible for content. Deputy Attorney General tells Supreme Court to dismiss case against Yahoo!, Google. Buenos Aires Herald – Argentina. Retrieved from: http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/139989/ Carter, E L 2013, Argentinas Right to Be Forgotten. Emory International Law Review, 27: 17-28. Coliver, S 1992, Striking a Balance. Hate Speech, Freedom of Expression and Non-Discrimination [Article 19]. International Centre against Censorship. Human Rights Centre. University of Essex. Directive 95/46/EC ‘On the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data.’ [EU Directive 1995]. European Commission (EU) 2012, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data (General Data Protection Regulation). 2012/0011 (COD). Article 17 – Right to be forgotten and To Erasure. Friedman, L M 2007, The Red Kimono: The Saga of Gabriel Darley Melvin – Guarding Lifes Dark Secrets: Legal and Social Controls over Reputation, Propriety, and Privacy. Stanford University Press. Fleischer, P 2011, Peter Fleischer: Privacy…?: Foggy thinking about the Right to Oblivion. Peterfleischer.blogspot.co.nz. Retrieved from: http://peterfleischer.blogspot.co.nz/2011/03/foggy-thinking-about-right-to-oblivion.html Google, Inc. 2014, Requests to remove content. Google Transparency Report, Copyright Removals. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ Hendel, J 2012, Why Journalists should fear Europe’s ‘Right to be Forgotten.’ The Atlantic [TECH]. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/01/why-journalists-shouldnt-fear-europes-right-to-be-forgotten/251955/ Kravets, D 2011, Convicted Murderer Sues Wikipedia. Demands Removal of His Name. Wired News [Threat Level: Censorship – Crime and Privacy]. Retrieved from: technical issues prevailed Mantelero, A 2013, The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of the right to be forgotten’. Computer Law & Security Review, 29 (3): 229–235. Mayes, T 2014, We have no right to be forgotten online. The Guardian.com. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/ Mayer-Schönberger, V 2009, Delete: the virtue of forgetting in the digital age. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. [Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931) at 852-853] Case. Mitrou, L & Maria, K 2012, EUs Data Protection Reform and the right to be forgotten—A legal response to a technological challenge? In the 5th International Conference of Information Law and Ethics. (pp. 29–30). Orlowski, A 2014, Slippery Google greases up, aims to squirm out of EU privacy grasp. Will the huge advertising firms manage to spin its way free of the law. The Register. Retrieved from: www.theregister.co.uk Rosen, J 2012, The Right to be Forgotten. Stanford Law Review, 64(88). [Sidis v. F-R Publishing Corporation 311 U.S. 711 61 S. Ct. 393 85 L. Ed. 462 1940 U.S.] Case. Solon, O 2014, People have the right to be forgotten, rules EU court. Wired.co.uk [Conde Nast Digital-Politics]. Retrieved from: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/13/right-to-be-forgotten-ruling Streitfeld, 2014, European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web. New York Times [Technology]. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?_r=0 Van Hoecke, M & Ost, F 2000, The harmonization of private law in Europe, (Eds.). Oxford: Hart Publishing. Whitman, J Q 2004, The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty. Yale Law Journal, 113(6): 1151–1221. Read More