Difference between revisions of "Right to be Forgotten"
(→Context) |
(→Context) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
#The right to be let alone (Warren & Brandeis definition of [[Privacy]].) | #The right to be let alone (Warren & Brandeis definition of [[Privacy]].) | ||
| − | Whatever the high minded rhetoric might be the on this subject, the reality is more gritty. In the specific case that | + | Whatever the high minded rhetoric might be the on this subject, the reality is more gritty. In the specific case that resulted in the legal edict, Mario Costeja González was forced to sell assets to cover debts to the Spanish Government, which required posting of the public notice of the fact, which is not even in question. Since Costeja could not get the newspaper to change a legal notification, he went after Google, saying that he had the right to squash republication of public records. In other word, what was public record, [[User Public Information]] available on a web site in Spain, was turned into [[User Private Information]] when it came to search engines, or what the [[GDPR]] calls a [data] controller. The other cases that are raised in support of the same principle are publications with false information about a [[User Private Information]], such as a list of sexual deviants. |
As should be most obvious at this point is the struggle between [[Free Speech]] and personal dignity, most certain NOT the [[Right to be Forgotten]]. This is at root the problem being addressed in the US with respect to dehumanization and [[Free Speech]]. in a single issue of the New York Times on 2018-08-11 the various statements were made: | As should be most obvious at this point is the struggle between [[Free Speech]] and personal dignity, most certain NOT the [[Right to be Forgotten]]. This is at root the problem being addressed in the US with respect to dehumanization and [[Free Speech]]. in a single issue of the New York Times on 2018-08-11 the various statements were made: | ||
Revision as of 12:55, 11 August 2018
Full Title or Meme
An attempt to allow an individual to censor specific User Public Information, in effect to retroactively turn User Public Information into User Private Information.
Context
Originally this right was created by judicial edict, itt is now enshrined in article 17 of the GDPR which says "The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the (Site or data) controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where" several limitations are excluded in the details that follow. [1] Which is not really the Right to be Forgotten, but just a right to erasure of specifically identified information. In other words, the right of an individual to censor certain data in an attempt to rewrite the individual's own history in the real-world. As might be expected, lots of people would like to undo some of the actions from their past. There are some particular cases where this right should exist, some of which that were recognized before the legal edict are:
- The right of prisoners to have the record wiped when then have completed their obligations under the law.
- The right of minors to have their transgressions treated as one-off events that do not get onto their public records.
- The right of any individual to keep the record of the VCR tapes they rented from public scrutiny.
- The right to be let alone (Warren & Brandeis definition of Privacy.)
Whatever the high minded rhetoric might be the on this subject, the reality is more gritty. In the specific case that resulted in the legal edict, Mario Costeja González was forced to sell assets to cover debts to the Spanish Government, which required posting of the public notice of the fact, which is not even in question. Since Costeja could not get the newspaper to change a legal notification, he went after Google, saying that he had the right to squash republication of public records. In other word, what was public record, User Public Information available on a web site in Spain, was turned into User Private Information when it came to search engines, or what the GDPR calls a [data] controller. The other cases that are raised in support of the same principle are publications with false information about a User Private Information, such as a list of sexual deviants.
As should be most obvious at this point is the struggle between Free Speech and personal dignity, most certain NOT the Right to be Forgotten. This is at root the problem being addressed in the US with respect to dehumanization and Free Speech. in a single issue of the New York Times on 2018-08-11 the various statements were made:
Problems
Solutions
There are none known today.
References
- ↑ European Parliament, REGULATION (EU) 2016/679. (2016-04-27) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from=EN
