I do think that the U.S. Congress should statutorily recognize a "right to be forgotten". While I recognize that "the right to be forgotten" has messy implications for Google, I do not feel concerned that it would become a way for governments to censor or to take away free speech. I do think that in considering which requests to grant, Google should take into account the common law privacy torts. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons in this situation.
Yes. Being able to remove oneself from the internet, even if the information is not protected by a privacy tort, is becoming an important part of maintaining a good public image, especially in this increasingly digital age where any information on the internet can be scrutinized by employers, friends, and anyone with access to the internet. In addition to allowing the average person to control their public image, it would also aid in cases such as domestic violence, stalking, or child custody disputes, so that identifying information about individuals involved could be removed more easily for their protection. This law would give anyone looking to apply it peace of mind knowing that they have a legally protected right to control how they appear on the internet.
Yes, but in a significantly modified form as it's currently implemented by the EU. I believe that, in its current form, the EU law is too far reaching, and could help people hide from the consequences of their actions. In addition, I strongly disagree with the fact that General Data Protection Regulation puts the current burden of proof on the search engine company to prove the result to be relevant, as opposed to putting the burden on the person to prove that it is no longer relevant (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf, top of page 3). By having citizens submit arguments/explanations as to why a search result is no longer relevant, a list of removed searches could be maintained on a separate page than the main search results, with explanations that allow citizens to put the result in a more favorable context. This way, people can't rewrite history entirely by simply passing a google review board, but they have an opportunity to state "their side", as well as have their search result hidden from cursory searches. I do think that there should be an option to purge results entirely, but it should be specially reserved for situations where a person is wrongly accused, or other situations where the accusation is baseless.
Everyone so far has been in favor of a "Right to be forgotten." While I am in favor of the basic idea, there is a major risk for abuse of the system. This is quite similar to the issue of copyright violation notices. The DMCA currently gives companies the power to issue take-down requests from Google and other search results, from Youtube, and many others for materials violating their copyright. While this seems reasonable, several companies have issued bulk requests with a very broad search scope. The result is that 1000s of videos that should be legal under the context of "fair use" have been taken down. While limiting the right-to-be forgotten to individuals would mitigate some of this risk, strong protections would need to be in place to prevent the abuse of this tool.
I am not in favor of a right to be forgotten. Although I do feel for those who have problems with revenge porn or maybe photos taken while drunk that are now being seen by potential employers, I feel like the power could be easily misused. When you think about it, people are essentially erasing history. I hate to bring up the cliche of 1984, but that is basically what they did, rewrite and edit history, and look how well that turned out.
Yes, but to a point. I am in favor of a "right to be forgotten" but only to a certain extent. People make mistakes and there should be some mercy in the system to protect them. Maybe it's a topless picture you sent to your boyfriend that he consequently posted online or a vicious comment you made when you were angry, there should be some sort of leeway in the system to protect people from permanently ruining their image. Reputation can be everything, especially to those in high profile positions. I agree with Anne in that you cannot erase history. There should be some forgiveness but I suggest that you can only erase your history a certain number of times over a set period of time, say once every 10 or 20 years. There has to be a middle ground between yes or no to this issue to allow forgiveness but without doctoring history too severely.
Yes, but to a point. I am in favor of a "right to be forgotten" but only to a certain extent. People make mistakes and there should be some mercy in the system to protect them. Maybe it's a topless picture you sent to your boyfriend that he consequently posted online or a vicious comment you made when you were angry, there should be some sort of leeway in the system to protect people from permanently ruining their image. Reputation can be everything, especially to those in high profile positions. I agree with Anne in that you cannot erase history. There should be some forgiveness but I suggest that you can only erase your history a certain number of times over a set period of time, say once every 10 or 20 years. There has to be a middle ground between yes or no to this issue to allow forgiveness but without doctoring history too severely.
The potential to censor information on the internet makes me immediately skeptical. I believe that the internet should be a free and unfettered battlefield of ideas and ideologies, and so any attempts to limit, edit, or destroy information on the web I feel threatens freedoms of speech and information, creating a dangerous precedent. However, as the world shrinks and becomes ever more interconnected, an increasing proportion of our daily lives and activity becomes immortalized on the internet. As this proportion grows, it has an almost omniscient and panoptic effect, publicizing one's every action, mistake, and malfeasance. I also strongly believe that there can be no true freedom when one is subjected to such pervasive scrutiny. Therefore, however reluctantly, I do think a 'right to be forgotten' law should be recognized, but it should be done so carefully, and every precaution should be taken to prevent its abuses.
Yes, I believe that the US should adopt the "right to be forgotten", but it should be well laid out under what circumstances it is applicable. For example, I would be very against this right being abused in the name of the sometimes overly politically correct atmosphere we live in now. If someone were to try to use the "right to be forgotten" to take down an opinion someone has about them that they find 'offensive', or anything of this nature. Nor should the "right be forgotten" be able to be used to remove menial things like an accidental drunk tweet, or embarrassing Facebook photo.
However, things like revenge porn that are clearly posted with malicious intent and against the will of the subject, as well as old, irrelevant information (an MIP from when you are 17 years old holds little relevancy when you become an adult), should be able to be hidden. As others above me have said, our reputation precedes us, and if every wrongdoing or misstep can be exposed easily with a Google search, it will be very difficult to maintain a strong, clean online presence especially as technology becomes more and more integral in our lives.
I personally really struggled with this one. My gut reaction was "no."I thought it would allow past offenders to get on with their lives while they had ruined someone else's. But upon further reflection about the victims in these cases I have changed my mind. Even if a criminal does not deserve to be forgiven or forgotten the victims should be able to put what was done to them in the past. Plus the order has to be proved as "no longer accurate or relevant." I don't imagine it would very easy to make a case erase a history of heinous crimes. My answer is yes.
Similar to Mary's change of opinion, I initially regarded the right to be forgotten as an encroachment of free speech. However, I now believe that it is necessary to implement the right to be forgotten in the US, in major part because the benefits towards personal privacy and accurate public journaling outweigh the potential problems. The common person will benefit the most from implementation. In the event that potentially harmful private information--such as bank accounts, social security numbers, online passwords, and sensitive medical problems--gets published on the web, the ability to request its removal will prevent criminals from taking advantage of innocent people, ultimately making the web a slightly safer place. Society’s understanding of public figures and celebrities will also benefit. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, reputation is “the general estimation in which a person is held by the public.” While greatly influenced by private matters, a person’s reputation is a public entity, and while many claim that this (along with the law’s potential ability to “rewrite history”) is a detriment to free speech and accurate reporting, enacting the right to be forgotten will actually foster good journalism and fact-based speech by increasing the accuracy of a person’s reputation. In order for a search engine to “forget” a link, the petitioner must show that the information in question is inaccurate, misleading, or outdated. Currently in the US, there is a precedence for removing outdated legal information called expungement. Black's Law Dictionary defines expungement as the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." “While expungement deals with an underlying criminal record, it is a civil action in which the subject is the petitioner or plaintiff asking a court to declare that the records be expunged.” (Wikipedia) Lastly, the global community will also benefit from the US’s institution of the right to be forgotten. Many critics of the law complain that EU adoption will cause the globalization of the internet to weaken, and that countries will independently demand that search engines tailor the removal of links to their own laws. If the US were to adopt the right to be forgotten and emphasize its connection to the EU, this will set a precedence of cooperation which will strengthen the international consistency of the internet. In conclusion, I believe that American adoption of the right to be forgotten will be a positive step towards a freer, and yet more private, society.
Yes, I do think that the US Congress should implement a "right to be forgotten." People talk about how this law may be misused to rewrite history, but that is not the case. The website is not being erased and the content is still there, just not searchable by certain keywords. The EU court laid out that the "right to be forgotten applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive." I think this is a good way to curb any misuse of it. Google may not honor takedown requests of a person trying to "forget" their recent criminal record because this is relevant in finding a job, but The New Yorker article points out, people with 30 year old criminal records are being denied jobs and this may be on the grounds of being forgotten for being excessive.
Things like stupid drunk Facebook posts or embarrassing photos should not and probably are not covered under what the EU court laid out. Google and other search engines already have ways in the United States to take down search results from DMCA requests so this is something that Google is capable of doing.
I do think that the U.S. Congress should statutorily recognize a "right to be forgotten". While I recognize that "the right to be forgotten" has messy implications for Google, I do not feel concerned that it would become a way for governments to censor or to take away free speech. I do think that in considering which requests to grant, Google should take into account the common law privacy torts. I believe that the pros outweigh the cons in this situation.
ReplyDeleteYes. Being able to remove oneself from the internet, even if the information is not protected by a privacy tort, is becoming an important part of maintaining a good public image, especially in this increasingly digital age where any information on the internet can be scrutinized by employers, friends, and anyone with access to the internet. In addition to allowing the average person to control their public image, it would also aid in cases such as domestic violence, stalking, or child custody disputes, so that identifying information about individuals involved could be removed more easily for their protection. This law would give anyone looking to apply it peace of mind knowing that they have a legally protected right to control how they appear on the internet.
ReplyDeleteYes, but in a significantly modified form as it's currently implemented by the EU. I believe that, in its current form, the EU law is too far reaching, and could help people hide from the consequences of their actions. In addition, I strongly disagree with the fact that General Data Protection Regulation puts the current burden of proof on the search engine company to prove the result to be relevant, as opposed to putting the burden on the person to prove that it is no longer relevant (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf, top of page 3). By having citizens submit arguments/explanations as to why a search result is no longer relevant, a list of removed searches could be maintained on a separate page than the main search results, with explanations that allow citizens to put the result in a more favorable context. This way, people can't rewrite history entirely by simply passing a google review board, but they have an opportunity to state "their side", as well as have their search result hidden from cursory searches. I do think that there should be an option to purge results entirely, but it should be specially reserved for situations where a person is wrongly accused, or other situations where the accusation is baseless.
ReplyDeleteThere should also be stipulations that allow for the second form of removal for anything that violates the four privacy torts we discussed in class.
DeleteEveryone so far has been in favor of a "Right to be forgotten." While I am in favor of the basic idea, there is a major risk for abuse of the system. This is quite similar to the issue of copyright violation notices. The DMCA currently gives companies the power to issue take-down requests from Google and other search results, from Youtube, and many others for materials violating their copyright. While this seems reasonable, several companies have issued bulk requests with a very broad search scope. The result is that 1000s of videos that should be legal under the context of "fair use" have been taken down. While limiting the right-to-be forgotten to individuals would mitigate some of this risk, strong protections would need to be in place to prevent the abuse of this tool.
ReplyDeleteI am not in favor of a right to be forgotten. Although I do feel for those who have problems with revenge porn or maybe photos taken while drunk that are now being seen by potential employers, I feel like the power could be easily misused. When you think about it, people are essentially erasing history. I hate to bring up the cliche of 1984, but that is basically what they did, rewrite and edit history, and look how well that turned out.
ReplyDeleteYes, but to a point. I am in favor of a "right to be forgotten" but only to a certain extent. People make mistakes and there should be some mercy in the system to protect them. Maybe it's a topless picture you sent to your boyfriend that he consequently posted online or a vicious comment you made when you were angry, there should be some sort of leeway in the system to protect people from permanently ruining their image. Reputation can be everything, especially to those in high profile positions. I agree with Anne in that you cannot erase history. There should be some forgiveness but I suggest that you can only erase your history a certain number of times over a set period of time, say once every 10 or 20 years. There has to be a middle ground between yes or no to this issue to allow forgiveness but without doctoring history too severely.
ReplyDeleteYes, but to a point. I am in favor of a "right to be forgotten" but only to a certain extent. People make mistakes and there should be some mercy in the system to protect them. Maybe it's a topless picture you sent to your boyfriend that he consequently posted online or a vicious comment you made when you were angry, there should be some sort of leeway in the system to protect people from permanently ruining their image. Reputation can be everything, especially to those in high profile positions. I agree with Anne in that you cannot erase history. There should be some forgiveness but I suggest that you can only erase your history a certain number of times over a set period of time, say once every 10 or 20 years. There has to be a middle ground between yes or no to this issue to allow forgiveness but without doctoring history too severely.
ReplyDeleteThe potential to censor information on the internet makes me immediately skeptical. I believe that the internet should be a free and unfettered battlefield of ideas and ideologies, and so any attempts to limit, edit, or destroy information on the web I feel threatens freedoms of speech and information, creating a dangerous precedent. However, as the world shrinks and becomes ever more interconnected, an increasing proportion of our daily lives and activity becomes immortalized on the internet. As this proportion grows, it has an almost omniscient and panoptic effect, publicizing one's every action, mistake, and malfeasance. I also strongly believe that there can be no true freedom when one is subjected to such pervasive scrutiny. Therefore, however reluctantly, I do think a 'right to be forgotten' law should be recognized, but it should be done so carefully, and every precaution should be taken to prevent its abuses.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that the US should adopt the "right to be forgotten", but it should be well laid out under what circumstances it is applicable. For example, I would be very against this right being abused in the name of the sometimes overly politically correct atmosphere we live in now. If someone were to try to use the "right to be forgotten" to take down an opinion someone has about them that they find 'offensive', or anything of this nature. Nor should the "right be forgotten" be able to be used to remove menial things like an accidental drunk tweet, or embarrassing Facebook photo.
ReplyDeleteHowever, things like revenge porn that are clearly posted with malicious intent and against the will of the subject, as well as old, irrelevant information (an MIP from when you are 17 years old holds little relevancy when you become an adult), should be able to be hidden. As others above me have said, our reputation precedes us, and if every wrongdoing or misstep can be exposed easily with a Google search, it will be very difficult to maintain a strong, clean online presence especially as technology becomes more and more integral in our lives.
... or anything of this nature, it would be inappropriate*
DeleteI personally really struggled with this one. My gut reaction was "no."I thought it would allow past offenders to get on with their lives while they had ruined someone else's. But upon further reflection about the victims in these cases I have changed my mind. Even if a criminal does not deserve to be forgiven or forgotten the victims should be able to put what was done to them in the past. Plus the order has to be proved as "no longer accurate or relevant." I don't imagine it would very easy to make a case erase a history of heinous crimes. My answer is yes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Mary's change of opinion, I initially regarded the right to be forgotten as an encroachment of free speech. However, I now believe that it is necessary to implement the right to be forgotten in the US, in major part because the benefits towards personal privacy and accurate public journaling outweigh the potential problems.
ReplyDeleteThe common person will benefit the most from implementation. In the event that potentially harmful private information--such as bank accounts, social security numbers, online passwords, and sensitive medical problems--gets published on the web, the ability to request its removal will prevent criminals from taking advantage of innocent people, ultimately making the web a slightly safer place.
Society’s understanding of public figures and celebrities will also benefit. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, reputation is “the general estimation in which a person is held by the public.” While greatly influenced by private matters, a person’s reputation is a public entity, and while many claim that this (along with the law’s potential ability to “rewrite history”) is a detriment to free speech and accurate reporting, enacting the right to be forgotten will actually foster good journalism and fact-based speech by increasing the accuracy of a person’s reputation. In order for a search engine to “forget” a link, the petitioner must show that the information in question is inaccurate, misleading, or outdated. Currently in the US, there is a precedence for removing outdated legal information called expungement. Black's Law Dictionary defines expungement as the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." “While expungement deals with an underlying criminal record, it is a civil action in which the subject is the petitioner or plaintiff asking a court to declare that the records be expunged.” (Wikipedia)
Lastly, the global community will also benefit from the US’s institution of the right to be forgotten. Many critics of the law complain that EU adoption will cause the globalization of the internet to weaken, and that countries will independently demand that search engines tailor the removal of links to their own laws. If the US were to adopt the right to be forgotten and emphasize its connection to the EU, this will set a precedence of cooperation which will strengthen the international consistency of the internet.
In conclusion, I believe that American adoption of the right to be forgotten will be a positive step towards a freer, and yet more private, society.
Yes, I do think that the US Congress should implement a "right to be forgotten." People talk about how this law may be misused to rewrite history, but that is not the case. The website is not being erased and the content is still there, just not searchable by certain keywords. The EU court laid out that the "right to be forgotten applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive." I think this is a good way to curb any misuse of it. Google may not honor takedown requests of a person trying to "forget" their recent criminal record because this is relevant in finding a job, but The New Yorker article points out, people with 30 year old criminal records are being denied jobs and this may be on the grounds of being forgotten for being excessive.
ReplyDeleteThings like stupid drunk Facebook posts or embarrassing photos should not and probably are not covered under what the EU court laid out. Google and other search engines already have ways in the United States to take down search results from DMCA requests so this is something that Google is capable of doing.