Consumer Watchdog,
a consumer advocacy group, has sent a letter
to the United States Federal Trade Commission, asking for Americans to share in
Europe’s ‘Right to Be Forgotten.’
For over a year, Europeans have been empowered by a court
ruling to ask Google to remove search engine results that link to inadequate,
irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive personal information. To date, 280,709 requests have been made to remove 1,020,941 URLS; of these,
41% have been removed. In determining which requests to honor, Google weighs
personal safety against public interest. In other words, unknown victims are
likely to have outdated links removed, public figures are not.
For over a year, Europeans have been empowered by a court
ruling to ask Google to remove search engine results that link to inadequate,
irrelevant, no longer relevant or excessive personal information. To date, 280,709 requests have been made to remove 1,020,941 URLS; of these,
41% have been removed. In determining which requests to honor, Google weighs
personal safety against public interest. In other words, unknown victims are
likely to have outdated links removed, public figures are not.
For example, Google granted a Swedish woman’s request to
remove links to pages showing her address and an Italian crime victim’s request
to remove links to pages discussing the crime, but denied the requests of a UK
media professional who regretted content he had posted and a well-known Polish
business person who wanted to disassociate himself from a lawsuit.
Whether links are removed or not, information will continue
to exist on the internet—Google merely controls what shows up in its search
results. Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project Director John M. Simpson sees the
Right to Be Forgotten as a return to the days of Privacy By Obscurity. In his
letter, he argued, “Before the Internet if someone did something foolish when
they were young—and most of us probably did—there might well be a public record
of what happened. Over time, as they aged, people tended to forget whatever embarrassing
things someone did in their youth…This reality that our youthful indiscretions
and embarrassments and other matters no longer relevant slipped from the
general public’s consciousness is Privacy By Obscurity. The Digital Age has
ended that. Everything—all our digital footprints—are instantly available with
a few clicks on a computer or taps on a mobile device.”
Simpson proceeded to berate Google for claiming to respect
privacy despite not offering Americans the simple protections it offers Europeans:
“Google’s own experience in Europe demonstrates that Right To Be Forgotten
requests can be managed in a way that is fair and not burdensome for Google.”
Had Simpson spoken with Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin of France’s
National Committee on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL), he may have thought twice
about making a model of Google’s behavior in Europe. On June 12, CNIL
gave Google 15 days to change its delisting practices or risk facing sanctions
(a fine of 150,000 Euros). At issue is Google’s
practice of limiting the Right to Be Forgotten to country-specific versions of
the website, which means that a request submitted in Germany could only be removed
from google.de and a request submitted in the United Kingdom from google.co.uk.
CNIL states, "In accordance with the CJEU judgement, the CNIL considers that in order to be effective, delisting must be carried out on all extensions of the search engine and that the service provided by Google search constitute a single processing."
Consumer Watchdog is right to ask Google to protect America's Right to Be Forgotten, especially following the company's recent decision to remove requested links to revenge porn. However, the consumer advocacy group needs to set its sights higher than current European practice. In a globalized world with VPNs increasingly the norm, a Right to Be Forgotten on one country's version of Google is only a click away from being very much remembered.
"""
ReplyDeleteConsumer Watchdog is right to ask Google to protect America's Right to Be Forgotten, especially following the company's recent decision to remove requested links to revenge porn. However, the consumer advocacy group needs to set its sights higher than current European practice. In a globalized world with VPNs increasingly the norm, a Right to Be Forgotten on one country's version of Google is only a click away from being very much remembered.
"""
The right to be forgotten is not really that. It's the right to be forgotten by Google, as you say in your article. (Do you know if Bing, etc. face similar regulation in the EU?) This seems very similar to the idea that we should ban bitcoin because it can be used to purchase illegal drugs, or hobble encryption because terrorists can use it, or something maybe even closer to home for you all. The examples given as cases for removal of links to material are news stories from (as far as I can tell) domestically hosted sites. Unlike with the canonical revenge-porn-hosting site, where the servers are in a shady overseas jurisdiction with no real hope of legal recourse, news agencies can be coerced directly to remove the material if that's deemed a legal right. Why is it okay to force Google to remove a link, but unseemly to force the Guardian to delete stories from their archive because they mention a 10-year old minor criminal conviction? I suspect this somewhat motivated by European political anger towards a large American corporation and I disagree that this is a worthwhile or morally justified use of state power.
Howzit m!
DeleteThe Right to Be Forgotten applies to all search engines in Europe, including Bing (https://www.bing.com/webmaster/tools/eu-privacy-request). Google is mentioned most frequently because of its popularity, but is in no way held to a unique standard.
We agree with Consumer Watchdog’s insistence that the loss of Privacy by Obscurity is not a fair trade for the right to live in a digital age. Simpson’s letter explained privacy in the pre-internet era: “If someone else were highly motivated, they could go back into paper files and folders and dig up a person’s past. Usually this required effort and motivation. For a reporter, for instance, this sort of deep digging was routine with, say, candidates for public office, not for Joe Blow citizen.”
The Right to Be Forgotten does not—and should not—guarantee the erasure of painful or irrelevant moments from history. It simply allows them to be buried in the obscurity they always have been.
I’d recommend WIRED’s recent interview (http://www.wired.com/2015/06/isabelle-falque-pierrotin-privacy-needs-default-not-option/) with CNIL’s chairwoman to you. Falque-Pierrotin argues that the RtBF “gives the possibility to each of us not to alter the past but to have the possibility to control a little bit what we have done in the past and their digital appearance."
Today’s internet has largely divided humanity into data subjects and data controllers. In light of this fact, we are excited that—much like with revenge porn, from home or abroad—the Right to Be Forgotten has the potential to give typical internet users say in how their data is presented.
Cheers!
SumRando
সত তাই শক্তি
ReplyDelete