The ‘right to be forgotten’


in Internet matters, Law, Photography, Politics, Writing

In Argentina and the European Union, people can assert a “right to be forgotten“, in which internet companies are obligated to delete content which those complaining are unhappy to have online.

There is also a Canadian connection:

In June Canada’s Supreme Court ordered Google to stop its search engine returning a result advertising a product that infringed on a firm’s intellectual property… The Canadian ruling against Google, which applies worldwide, could be just the start. Later this year the European Court of Justice will decide whether the EU’s much-contested “right to be forgotten” applies not just to Google’s European sites, but to all of them. This would mean that links to information about people that is deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” in the EU will no longer be returned in response to any Google search anywhere. If the firm does not comply, it may face stiff fines.

The Economist raises the risk that allowing such censorship by governments could “create a ‘splinternet’, with national borders reproduced in cyberspace”.

I am fairly skeptical about rights-based approaches to ethics to start with, in part because they aren’t very useful as soon as one person is asserting Right A against someone else’s Right B. In this case, the other relevant rights are freedom of speech and what might be termed the freedom to record history.

I think all this is particularly risky when it comes to photography. In many places, the fact that a statement is true is a defence against allegations of slander or libel. Unedited photographs are in some sense always truthful historical records, but there are nonetheless many reasons why people aside from the photographer or the media source using them might want to see them purged. Letting people use a supposed extension of their right to privacy as a mechanism for censorship risks stifling artistic and creative expression, as well as depriving the world of information about what really happened in various times and places.

It’s not surprising that people want unflattering things about themselves removed from the internet, from criminal records and critical news stories to photos they dislike and things they wrote themselves but came to regret. At the same time, the people who post media online have an interest in keeping it up, and the world as a whole has an interest in knowing what has happened in the past. Granting people the power to use the courts to manipulate the historical record seems worrisome to me, as well as a substantial burden for all the platforms where such records are stored.

One downside to electronic media of all forms is the possibility of after-the-fact censorship, which would be impractical for things like printed books and newspapers.

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

anon August 26, 2017 at 11:21 am

At a minimum, there are special cases like doxing and revenge porn where it makes sense for a court to be able to order the removal of material from the internet. Maybe it’s a mistake to cast that as part of a general ‘Right To Be Forgotten.’

. October 23, 2017 at 12:40 pm
. January 29, 2018 at 11:24 am

Why the Canadian Privacy Commissioner’s Proposed Right to be Forgotten Creates More Problems Than it Solves

Perhaps most troubling is that the report empowers search engines to play the role of judge and jury over the relevance and harm associated with links to content. Companies such as Google have attracted increasing concern over their ubiquitous role in how we access information. If implemented, the Privacy Commissioner’s report would troublingly expand that role by granting Internet giants the power to determine upon request whether a search result is incomplete or outdated as well as whether it should be de-indexed, lowered in ranking, or flagged as incomplete. In the search for a solution to online reputational harm, the proposal creates more problems than it solves.

. January 10, 2019 at 8:10 pm

‘Right to be forgotten’ by Google should apply only in EU, says court opinion

NGOs warned of potential harm to internet users’ rights if Google lost ECJ case

. January 22, 2019 at 5:17 pm

Dutch surgeon wins landmark ‘right to be forgotten’ case

Ruling will ensure doctors no longer judged by Google on fitness to practise, lawyer says

. July 29, 2019 at 9:57 pm
. August 19, 2019 at 3:47 pm

“There are many ways this editorial could fall foul of Malaysian law. If it is too critical of Malaysia’s government, or of its courts, or of its system of racial preferences for Malays (the biggest ethnic group), or of its pampered and prickly sultans, it could be deemed seditious. If it contradicts the government’s account of any given event or circumstance, it could be in breach of the Anti-Fake News Act, adopted last year. Then there is a series of restrictive laws about who can publish what and who can give offence to whom (it is essential to steer clear of anything that might be construed by a paranoid prosecutor as an insult to Islam, in particular). These rules give the police an excuse to arrest irksome journalists and hand censors the authority to ban and seize offending material. If all else fails, a trio of laws that allow long periods of detention without trial can be used to lock up activists, opposition politicians or anyone else.”

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: