Difference between revisions of "Right to be Forgotten"
(→Context) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Problems== | ||
As should be most obvious at this point is that the struggle between [[Free Speech]] and personal dignity is under discussion, most certainly 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 that the struggle between [[Free Speech]] and personal dignity is under discussion, most certainly 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: | ||
*Page A1, Mr. Stone, an advisor to President Trump is asked to testify about facts that would surely ruin his reputation. He refused and was held in contempt of court. | *Page A1, Mr. Stone, an advisor to President Trump is asked to testify about facts that would surely ruin his reputation. He refused and was held in contempt of court. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
*Page C1 The poet Langston Hughes is quite dead, and the history sleuths have found that his mother lied about his age when putting him into school and he compounded the lie later in life, incidentally the authors discovered other lies about peoples' age which was published in the NY Times. Calling someone a liar about some fact that is irrelevant to their job or accomplishments seems petty and unnecessary when they are dead, but has caused otherwise good living people to lose jobs that are important to them. Should that sort of reporting be treated differently than the Twitter case which is also about a site that deliberately lies? And in the same newspaper on the same day? Could the court be asked to make those people whole who lost their jobs? | *Page C1 The poet Langston Hughes is quite dead, and the history sleuths have found that his mother lied about his age when putting him into school and he compounded the lie later in life, incidentally the authors discovered other lies about peoples' age which was published in the NY Times. Calling someone a liar about some fact that is irrelevant to their job or accomplishments seems petty and unnecessary when they are dead, but has caused otherwise good living people to lose jobs that are important to them. Should that sort of reporting be treated differently than the Twitter case which is also about a site that deliberately lies? And in the same newspaper on the same day? Could the court be asked to make those people whole who lost their jobs? | ||
| − | + | ||
==Solutions== | ==Solutions== | ||
There are none known today. | There are none known today. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 13:42, 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.
Problems
As should be most obvious at this point is that the struggle between Free Speech and personal dignity is under discussion, most certainly 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:
- Page A1, Mr. Stone, an advisor to President Trump is asked to testify about facts that would surely ruin his reputation. He refused and was held in contempt of court.
- Page A1 “If a Catholic hospital maybe doesn’t emphasize overtly Catholic identity as much as they used to, it is not to trick anyone. It’s simply to make people feel comfortable and welcome in an increasingly pluralistic society". But they still refuse to perform any operation that might seem like birth control, so they are trying to mislead people by hiding who they really are, which is the core of the Costeja case and shows one potential unintended consequence of the ruling.
- Page B1 Twitter tries "rid the site of 'dehumanizing' speech, even if it did not violate Twitter's rules." Another case of trying to apply vague terms (like vague terms used in the Costeja case) to real-world problems, like how to block a site that that spreads lies that cause real problems to real people. It turns out that vague platitudes do not make good regulations, nor bring about the intended consequences.
- Page B7 describes an American football player that lost his job in part because of some unsavory behavior. He is now trying to play Canadian football, but his old behavior is featured in the article. What he wants is for his past behavior to be forgotten, what is got was an article on his past behavior. What would the EU court have to say about that (assuming it had jurisdiction) if he later decided to ask Google not to reference that NY Times article?
- Page C1 The poet Langston Hughes is quite dead, and the history sleuths have found that his mother lied about his age when putting him into school and he compounded the lie later in life, incidentally the authors discovered other lies about peoples' age which was published in the NY Times. Calling someone a liar about some fact that is irrelevant to their job or accomplishments seems petty and unnecessary when they are dead, but has caused otherwise good living people to lose jobs that are important to them. Should that sort of reporting be treated differently than the Twitter case which is also about a site that deliberately lies? And in the same newspaper on the same day? Could the court be asked to make those people whole who lost their jobs?
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
