Everybody Has The “Right To Be Forgotten” Essays Example

The internet can be an extraordinary place. It is full of wisdom and information. It is full of videos and photographs of kittens playing the keyboard. It even has websites where you can buy anything from cheap medication to grand pianos. Unfortunately, what the internet also often has is very private, personal, often irrelevant information about nearly everybody we know, including ourselves. A quick Google search of ourselves, or anybody we know, is liable to dig up some unsavory information. Anything from photographs with ex romantic partners, to our criminal histories can be floating around the internet. Those in favor of this information being on the internet argue that it is freedom of speech, and the people have a right to know. Those against it, however, argue that a right to privacy is at stake, and that private citizens in some countries are not being granted the same courtesies as those in other countries, or even big corporations. The world demanded that all people be protected from search engines because if one continent was to be protected, everybody should be, because Google was fully capable of removing sensitive information at no consequence to their brand, and finally because irrelevant and sensitive information being available online can be damaging to one’s present and future life.
According to Marc Rotenberg’s article, “The Right to Privacy is Global,” in early 2014, Europe’s top court ruled internet search engines were to remove sensitive material from their database, effectively eliminating the threat of damaging, personal material being leaked on the internet . It was cause for celebration all over Europe. No longer would a quick search through the internet reveal every speeding ticket, every minor or major lawful infraction, or every insidious video taken at a bar, without the subject’s permission. The personal lives of the people of Europe were safe. So, what about the rest of the world? The citizens of America and several other countries demanded the same treatment, as they too were tired of reliving past mistakes thanks to the internet. Unfortunately, specifically the American government saw such lawful interventions as an infringement on the American People’s Freedom of Speech, allowing them to saw what they want, where they want. This argument, however, was ignored as far as the public was concerned. If one country was going to be promised privacy, it was only right that the entire world be shielded from the prying eyes of the internet and its intrusive search engines. Citizens of the world should have had the right to have their personal lives remain personal.
Unfortunately, Google, the titan of search engines, initially denied the demand to delete sensitive information. The cited it would be impossible . This could not be the case, as they routinely withhold critically personal information such as credit card numbers, and often delete material subject to copyright laws . That they are capable of deleting these pieces of information, and deem it necessary to do only begs the question, why not all sensitive or personal information? Are an individual’s credit card numbers more personal than a video of them sharing an intimate moment with a partner? Moreover, what if the individual in the video never provided consent for the video to be used? The video defiantly shows the individual’s face, yet no permission was given to post it. Still, videos and photographs are posted without permission every second on the internet, much to the chagrin of the people in them. That no permission is granted for posting would be a violation of copyright laws in the legal system. Google, however, is only not at fault because as people do not ever feel it necessary to copyright our faces. You copyright an idea or a product, not the genetic makeup that wraps around your organs and skeletal system. One’s face is not an idea, but an assembly of cells, and for Google to allow the posting of information directly related to a person’s face, or history, because neither have been copyrighted is not only sinister, but it is also laughable. Aside from the fact it is obvious nobody should feel the need to copyright their likeness, being they are not a brand, “Right to be Forgotten” should be worldwide because personal, sensitive information being shared freely online can be damaging to a person’s present and future life. Moreover, much of the personal information shared online is outdated, and irrelevant . Outdated, irrelevant information is still often taken as relevant when it is dramatic or salacious. If an individual had a disagreeable encounter with law enforcement ten years prior to attending a job interview, it is likely they are completely different person than the individual they were when the incident occurred. However, employers may not care, and can make judgements based on the information they find during these searches. Essentially, though the information is no longer relevant to the person’s life it can become relevant when it begins affecting their daily routines or their attempts to better themselves. People should have a right to be forgotten on the internet when the information no longer pertains to whom they are, or who they are trying to become.
In sum, “Right to be Forgotten” is a valid idea. The world’s citizens should experience it, rather than only a single country or continent. Everybody has a past, littered with things they are not proud of; it is not up to the owners of search engines to decide what stay and what goes. Furthermore, it is not up to the government or lawmakers to decide which pieces of personal information should be divulged and which should not. A person’s criminal record is no more relevant to society than their bank statement; it is crude and unjust to share either. Google’s attempts to argue that neither a person’s life or likeness are under copyright law and are, therefore, up for display, is laughable. These pieces of information are damaging, and often irrelevant to the person’s status and state of mind. For all of these reasons, and others, sensitive information should be removed from all search engine databases.

Works Cited

Rotenberg, Marc. The Right to Privacy Is Global. 5 December 2014. Website. 2 April 2015.