Yes. The "right to be forgotten" seems to be a solution to a small aspect of the unforgetting nature of the Internet. It will come at a monetary cost to search engine corporations, as departments will have to be employed to make judgments on the potential need for the removal of one's link through a search. However, this can be used to partially prevent future legal action against such corporations by an individual. I was wary of the right to be forgotten applied to search engines because I assumed that this would lead to the deletion of actual content, but in this context, it really is just a small effort to appease the esteem of individuals. In addition, such an action in the Congress could potentially lead to deeper education into privacy and the permanent nature of online activity within schools. One caveat to the "right to be forgotten," is that my argument is in relation to the removal of a tie between an individual's name being typed in a search bar and harmful search results in the same search engine, and no further. If the "right to be forgotten" were codified broadly enough as to be held up as a standard for any future argument (i.e. 2nd Amendment), then the societal and monetary costs would far outweigh the benefits. The extremely narrow implications of the EU right to be forgotten are where the strength of such a statue lies.
Yes, I think that the "right to be forgotten" would be a good policy for the US to recognize. I think that it is good that requests to have certain links to names removed are reviewed on a case-by-case basis so that the "right to be forgotten" isn't abused. There are situations such as cyberbullying where there are legitimate reasons to want links to names removed, and I think that individuals should be able to have this done. This may not fix all problems linked to situations such as this because the information is not removed from the internet, just the links to names from search engines, but at least it would help. If nothing else, the information would at least be harder to access, which may be able to reduce the spread of the information.
Yes, I believe that a "Right to Be Forgotten" policy would be beneficial in our country. If someone has posted information about you online that is untrue, private, or degrading, you should have every right to prevent that from showing up when your name is searched online. Also, having such a statute in place may deter others from posting such information in the first place. After all, why post something false if the victim will likely disconnect themselves from that soon afterwards? I also liked Christian's point about maintaining narrow enough limitations on the statute so that it is not overly taken advantage of.
Yes, I think that the "Right to Be Forgotten" policy should be extended to this country. The internet makes everything permanent even when a person's thought's and feelings change over time. I do not think there is one person in the world sho hasn't changed their opinion on something over their lifetime. If there is that person has not made any effort to learn and grow as a person. If someone realizes they made an error in judgement in their past, they should be able to remove that information and avoid it continuing to harm their reputation. Although, there should be some type of regulation committee to decide what types of information should be subject to removal. For example if someone committed a crime in the past and posted online about it, then later wanted to remove it to avoid punishment I don't think that is acceptable.
Yes While the press does have freedom of speech, if they publish something that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive," the person whose information is being released should be able to remove that information from the public. If the information is left available, but is missing information or is no longer important (such as an old charge against someone that has been dropped), leaving that information public is of little benefit to the press (or some other entity) but is damaging to the subject. The 'Right to be Forgotten' helps those who have made mistakes, or have had mistaken information released about them, get away from that information and move on with their lives. And the information that falls under this protection is not vital but would generally be embarassing moments or mistakes that are irrelevant.
Yes, I agree with the view that the US should recognize the "right to be forgotten" like the European Union has. The stipulations that the published information must be "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive" are adequate for purposes of identifying what information is considered for exclusion by search engines and prevents frivolous appeals. I think the EU's approach to implementing this actually has teeth, whereas the similar but ineffective way the US proposes to keep search engines from showing information (allowing people to find the information simply using different key words and still being able to find the data by using site-contained searches,) is frankly laughable. All that effort to fight for the right to remove one's name from one search engine linking them to one site and then it still being so easy to work around? The more comprehensive omission tactics of the EU's approach just make sense.
As a side note, I like the European Union's view that personal data is "property" like physical objects--it is theirs and only theirs until it is given away freely. The view that your right to your data is yours until it is given away makes much more sense than the American view that information is public until efforts are made to have it omitted. "Private until made public" versus "Public until made private" in my opinion is just more respectful.
Yes. There is currently no nation-wide policy in the U.S. that allows an individual to control their information on the internet after it has been posted (other than deleting things off of one's own profiles/websites, but these things never disappear). While the EU's "right to be forgotten" does not remove the information, only applies to search engines and raises further questions about online privacy/information rights, it is a conscious step to give individuals options for delisting information posted about them that they (and the law) deem "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive". If the U.S. were to implement a similar statute, it would be a step toward increasing privacy rights and navigating how privacy and free speech can both be stated as essential rights by the U.S. government. However, implementing such a statute should not be the end of the privacy argument. If such a statute were to be implemented, I feel that some people (citizens and government officials alike) would be appeased and believe, as the name implies, that it provides much more security and agency for individuals than it actually does. I believe that establishing such a statute should be a springboard to other privacy/information protections for individuals.
Yes, I believe it should. As our readings expressed, the "right to be forgotten" is extremely limited, and information can only be forgotten so long as it is "inaccurate, excessive, inadequate, or irrelevant." Predators and politicians will not be able to easily take advantage of the "Right to be Forgotten" because of these stipulations. Additionally, the search engine only forgets the name and its association with a certain article - no content is actually deleted. With that being accounted for, there is no real danger in "Right to be Forgotten."
The only significant difficulty I can think of at this time will be for an author of a publication to easily find their own published news stories. They won't be able to easily access the articles with direct links as they might have previously; however, the article won't actually be deleted, and so they will be able to locate it again.
This situation is very significant to me because a close family member of mine was falsely accused for a crime they didn't commit. The articles are still published and easily accessible on the web despite their untruthfulness. If my family member's name was disassociated with the articles, that would greatly benefit them and their emotional well-being and job prospects.
Yes, if information is spread across the internet about a person that is, as the European Union has put it, "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive," then one should be allowed to have that information deleted from search engines so that it is, while not deleted, at least not as easily found. Such a policy would be of benefit to those who have experienced cyberbullying or some form of domestic violence, as it would allow them to have closure. Also, if someone did something unbelievably stupid in adolescence that does not define what said person is like in the present, he or she should have the right to not be defined by that one particular moment in time.
No, I do not think that the "right to be forgotten" should be statutorily recognized in the United States. Instead, I believe that the current expungement laws should be updated to include de-linking of news articles in accordance of the Name of the offender. I also don't think that news outlets should be told to delete their content as long as they are reporting with the facts of the story, not alternative facts. I especially believe that news outlets should not be told to delete content from their personal databases. We all have embarrassing things that we post on the internet. Think to the Last Week Tonight that we watched in preparation for this week. #MutuallyAssuredHumiliation The rest of the right should be talked about, and dealt with state by state.
I like the ideas that the EU has brought up. I think that the US should adopt more policies like the "Right to be Forgotten" policy. People make mistakes and with the large popularity of social media and the internet, it is easy for those mistakes to get blown out of proportion or spread around. If the US did adopt these policies, I think clearer lines may need to be made in regards to the means by which someone obtains the "Right to be Forgotten". Although I favor the "Right to be Forgotten" I can see the benefits of keeping the internet an open space with less control. Some jobs may look you up to get a background on who you are. If you have been arrested or committed any other crime, this can greatly influence if you get the job and how the company views your application. I also think that the businesses have a right to know who the background of who they are hiring. Overall, I think the US would benefit from privacy laws more like the EU.
I have mixed feelings about The Right to Be Forgotten:
On the one hand, when it works, it seems to do a good job -- In other words, when the problem in question is one low-profile article, video, etc., it is able to be effectively hidden.
However, I don't think that the area where the law is effective is very large. In the case of an already-viral video, article, etc., which are likely the most-damaging, it is a game of whackamole of an individual vs. the entire Internet. Every time a link gets blacklisted, another two would pop up.
As the law does do some good, I think having something like it would do at least some good, so I am in favour of enacting such a law, provided it is clear that more brainstorming towards a more complete solution needs to happen.
No. The “Right to be Forgotten” as it is implemented in the EU does not seem to be to be incredibly useful. There are plenty of people around today that make a living by aggregating odd stories across the internet and posting them on social media stream. The “Right to be Forgotten” would not protect “forgotten” content from being aggregated, it would simply make it a little more difficult. Internet Archive is another good example of a tool that completely defeats the “Right to be Forgotten.” One of the entire points of storing data digitally is that it’s incredibly difficult to erase, we must come to terms with the fact that our digital footprint is everlasting.
No, I do not believe that Congress should adopt a similar policy to the “Right to be Forgotten” policy. I hold this position because it would be an infringement on the search engines First Amendment rights. The search engines have the right to post such links if they lead to true and accurate stories if they so choose, and if there was inaccurate information put on the webpage then the dispute should be resolved between the web page that posted inaccurate information and the victim. The search engine should never be involved. I also feel that the policy will do very little in accomplishing its goals. This is due to the fact that the damage that is caused by posting an embarrassing video will have already been done before this policy would be of any help. Why should a policy be created that will provide such little benefit, especially when private companies will at times remove such links without the law.
Yes. Like many others have already said, I believe that a right to be forgotten would be a step in the right direction in allowing private citizens the ability to protect their personal information in an era where technology has made it increasingly harder to do so. Even more than having the ability to rescind or delete information that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive", what would be of huge benefit is the ability to request and access any information of yours that might be gathered and stored. I feel that too often issues of privacy security become tangled up in Orwellian nightmare scenarios, when the current reality of data collection and control is much more insidious. If people had easy access to information collected about them and that this was happening all the time, people would have a more realistic and proactive view of how we should deal with the privacy issues faced in the digital age.
Yes, with conditions. I think that people should be allowed to remove the link between their name and web content so long as the information they are trying to hide does not endanger the public. To determine whether or not the information is dangerous, we should follow the guidelines in our already existing expungement laws -- i.e. if the article is about a misdemeanor, and occurred several years ago, the person can have the "right to be forgotten." But they shouldn't be allowed to do so with violent and other serious crimes. For example, a parent considering hiring a nanny should be able to discover through a Google search that their applicant is a sex offender.
Yes. On balance, I think that it would be good both for privacy and for the First Amendment. In fact, I think that a "right to be forgotten" implementation would be better at honoring the First Amendment than California's existing Internet Eraser Law.
No, the right to be forgotten is an ineffective bandaid for privacy violations. As I mentioned in ny comment on Alex's blog post I think the right to be forgotten is basically useless against viral content since it takes too long to come into effect. I also think that this kind of curation of facts from the internet is bad for historical reasons. What really needs to change is the way we judge others based on thier past, for example someone with a previous petty crime should not be judged by it during an interview.
Yes. The "right to be forgotten" seems to be a solution to a small aspect of the unforgetting nature of the Internet. It will come at a monetary cost to search engine corporations, as departments will have to be employed to make judgments on the potential need for the removal of one's link through a search. However, this can be used to partially prevent future legal action against such corporations by an individual. I was wary of the right to be forgotten applied to search engines because I assumed that this would lead to the deletion of actual content, but in this context, it really is just a small effort to appease the esteem of individuals. In addition, such an action in the Congress could potentially lead to deeper education into privacy and the permanent nature of online activity within schools. One caveat to the "right to be forgotten," is that my argument is in relation to the removal of a tie between an individual's name being typed in a search bar and harmful search results in the same search engine, and no further. If the "right to be forgotten" were codified broadly enough as to be held up as a standard for any future argument (i.e. 2nd Amendment), then the societal and monetary costs would far outweigh the benefits. The extremely narrow implications of the EU right to be forgotten are where the strength of such a statue lies.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that the "right to be forgotten" would be a good policy for the US to recognize. I think that it is good that requests to have certain links to names removed are reviewed on a case-by-case basis so that the "right to be forgotten" isn't abused. There are situations such as cyberbullying where there are legitimate reasons to want links to names removed, and I think that individuals should be able to have this done. This may not fix all problems linked to situations such as this because the information is not removed from the internet, just the links to names from search engines, but at least it would help. If nothing else, the information would at least be harder to access, which may be able to reduce the spread of the information.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that a "Right to Be Forgotten" policy would be beneficial in our country. If someone has posted information about you online that is untrue, private, or degrading, you should have every right to prevent that from showing up when your name is searched online. Also, having such a statute in place may deter others from posting such information in the first place. After all, why post something false if the victim will likely disconnect themselves from that soon afterwards? I also liked Christian's point about maintaining narrow enough limitations on the statute so that it is not overly taken advantage of.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that the "Right to Be Forgotten" policy should be extended to this country. The internet makes everything permanent even when a person's thought's and feelings change over time. I do not think there is one person in the world sho hasn't changed their opinion on something over their lifetime. If there is that person has not made any effort to learn and grow as a person. If someone realizes they made an error in judgement in their past, they should be able to remove that information and avoid it continuing to harm their reputation. Although, there should be some type of regulation committee to decide what types of information should be subject to removal. For example if someone committed a crime in the past and posted online about it, then later wanted to remove it to avoid punishment I don't think that is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteYes
ReplyDeleteWhile the press does have freedom of speech, if they publish something that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive," the person whose information is being released should be able to remove that information from the public. If the information is left available, but is missing information or is no longer important (such as an old charge against someone that has been dropped), leaving that information public is of little benefit to the press (or some other entity) but is damaging to the subject. The 'Right to be Forgotten' helps those who have made mistakes, or have had mistaken information released about them, get away from that information and move on with their lives. And the information that falls under this protection is not vital but would generally be embarassing moments or mistakes that are irrelevant.
Yes, I agree with the view that the US should recognize the "right to be forgotten" like the European Union has. The stipulations that the published information must be "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive" are adequate for purposes of identifying what information is considered for exclusion by search engines and prevents frivolous appeals. I think the EU's approach to implementing this actually has teeth, whereas the similar but ineffective way the US proposes to keep search engines from showing information (allowing people to find the information simply using different key words and still being able to find the data by using site-contained searches,) is frankly laughable. All that effort to fight for the right to remove one's name from one search engine linking them to one site and then it still being so easy to work around? The more comprehensive omission tactics of the EU's approach just make sense.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, I like the European Union's view that personal data is "property" like physical objects--it is theirs and only theirs until it is given away freely. The view that your right to your data is yours until it is given away makes much more sense than the American view that information is public until efforts are made to have it omitted. "Private until made public" versus "Public until made private" in my opinion is just more respectful.
Yes. There is currently no nation-wide policy in the U.S. that allows an individual to control their information on the internet after it has been posted (other than deleting things off of one's own profiles/websites, but these things never disappear). While the EU's "right to be forgotten" does not remove the information, only applies to search engines and raises further questions about online privacy/information rights, it is a conscious step to give individuals options for delisting information posted about them that they (and the law) deem "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive". If the U.S. were to implement a similar statute, it would be a step toward increasing privacy rights and navigating how privacy and free speech can both be stated as essential rights by the U.S. government. However, implementing such a statute should not be the end of the privacy argument. If such a statute were to be implemented, I feel that some people (citizens and government officials alike) would be appeased and believe, as the name implies, that it provides much more security and agency for individuals than it actually does. I believe that establishing such a statute should be a springboard to other privacy/information protections for individuals.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe it should. As our readings expressed, the "right to be forgotten" is extremely limited, and information can only be forgotten so long as it is "inaccurate, excessive, inadequate, or irrelevant." Predators and politicians will not be able to easily take advantage of the "Right to be Forgotten" because of these stipulations. Additionally, the search engine only forgets the name and its association with a certain article - no content is actually deleted. With that being accounted for, there is no real danger in "Right to be Forgotten."
ReplyDeleteThe only significant difficulty I can think of at this time will be for an author of a publication to easily find their own published news stories. They won't be able to easily access the articles with direct links as they might have previously; however, the article won't actually be deleted, and so they will be able to locate it again.
This situation is very significant to me because a close family member of mine was falsely accused for a crime they didn't commit. The articles are still published and easily accessible on the web despite their untruthfulness. If my family member's name was disassociated with the articles, that would greatly benefit them and their emotional well-being and job prospects.
Yes, if information is spread across the internet about a person that is, as the European Union has put it, "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive," then one should be allowed to have that information deleted from search engines so that it is, while not deleted, at least not as easily found. Such a policy would be of benefit to those who have experienced cyberbullying or some form of domestic violence, as it would allow them to have closure. Also, if someone did something unbelievably stupid in adolescence that does not define what said person is like in the present, he or she should have the right to not be defined by that one particular moment in time.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think that the "right to be forgotten" should be statutorily recognized in the United States. Instead, I believe that the current expungement laws should be updated to include de-linking of news articles in accordance of the Name of the offender. I also don't think that news outlets should be told to delete their content as long as they are reporting with the facts of the story, not alternative facts. I especially believe that news outlets should not be told to delete content from their personal databases. We all have embarrassing things that we post on the internet. Think to the Last Week Tonight that we watched in preparation for this week. #MutuallyAssuredHumiliation The rest of the right should be talked about, and dealt with state by state.
ReplyDeleteI like the ideas that the EU has brought up. I think that the US should adopt more policies like the "Right to be Forgotten" policy. People make mistakes and with the large popularity of social media and the internet, it is easy for those mistakes to get blown out of proportion or spread around. If the US did adopt these policies, I think clearer lines may need to be made in regards to the means by which someone obtains the "Right to be Forgotten". Although I favor the "Right to be Forgotten" I can see the benefits of keeping the internet an open space with less control. Some jobs may look you up to get a background on who you are. If you have been arrested or committed any other crime, this can greatly influence if you get the job and how the company views your application. I also think that the businesses have a right to know who the background of who they are hiring. Overall, I think the US would benefit from privacy laws more like the EU.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about The Right to Be Forgotten:
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, when it works, it seems to do a good job -- In other words, when the problem in question is one low-profile article, video, etc., it is able to be effectively hidden.
However, I don't think that the area where the law is effective is very large. In the case of an already-viral video, article, etc., which are likely the most-damaging, it is a game of whackamole of an individual vs. the entire Internet. Every time a link gets blacklisted, another two would pop up.
As the law does do some good, I think having something like it would do at least some good, so I am in favour of enacting such a law, provided it is clear that more brainstorming towards a more complete solution needs to happen.
No.
ReplyDeleteThe “Right to be Forgotten” as it is implemented in the EU does not seem to be to be incredibly useful. There are plenty of people around today that make a living by aggregating odd stories across the internet and posting them on social media stream. The “Right to be Forgotten” would not protect “forgotten” content from being aggregated, it would simply make it a little more difficult. Internet Archive is another good example of a tool that completely defeats the “Right to be Forgotten.” One of the entire points of storing data digitally is that it’s incredibly difficult to erase, we must come to terms with the fact that our digital footprint is everlasting.
No, I do not believe that Congress should adopt a similar policy to the “Right to be Forgotten” policy. I hold this position because it would be an infringement on the search engines First Amendment rights. The search engines have the right to post such links if they lead to true and accurate stories if they so choose, and if there was inaccurate information put on the webpage then the dispute should be resolved between the web page that posted inaccurate information and the victim. The search engine should never be involved. I also feel that the policy will do very little in accomplishing its goals. This is due to the fact that the damage that is caused by posting an embarrassing video will have already been done before this policy would be of any help. Why should a policy be created that will provide such little benefit, especially when private companies will at times remove such links without the law.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteYes. Like many others have already said, I believe that a right to be forgotten would be a step in the right direction in allowing private citizens the ability to protect their personal information in an era where technology has made it increasingly harder to do so. Even more than having the ability to rescind or delete information that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive", what would be of huge benefit is the ability to request and access any information of yours that might be gathered and stored. I feel that too often issues of privacy security become tangled up in Orwellian nightmare scenarios, when the current reality of data collection and control is much more insidious. If people had easy access to information collected about them and that this was happening all the time, people would have a more realistic and proactive view of how we should deal with the privacy issues faced in the digital age.
Yes, with conditions. I think that people should be allowed to remove the link between their name and web content so long as the information they are trying to hide does not endanger the public. To determine whether or not the information is dangerous, we should follow the guidelines in our already existing expungement laws -- i.e. if the article is about a misdemeanor, and occurred several years ago, the person can have the "right to be forgotten." But they shouldn't be allowed to do so with violent and other serious crimes. For example, a parent considering hiring a nanny should be able to discover through a Google search that their applicant is a sex offender.
ReplyDeleteYes. On balance, I think that it would be good both for privacy and for the First Amendment. In fact, I think that a "right to be forgotten" implementation would be better at honoring the First Amendment than California's existing Internet Eraser Law.
ReplyDeleteNo, the right to be forgotten is an ineffective bandaid for privacy violations. As I mentioned in ny comment on Alex's blog post I think the right to be forgotten is basically useless against viral content since it takes too long to come into effect. I also think that this kind of curation of facts from the internet is bad for historical reasons. What really needs to change is the way we judge others based on thier past, for example someone with a previous petty crime should not be judged by it during an interview.
ReplyDelete