Sample Critical Thinking On Should Persons And Organizations Have The Right To Be “Forgotten” From Google By Having Webpages Deleted From Internet Searches?

Recently, the European Union Court of Justice has ruled that a search engine like Google must allow people to have the right to be forgotten when they want their personal data circulating in the internet to be deleted. A heated debate had been going on for years with regards to the right to privacy of people. The internet is a place where information once stored remains forever. This is especially uncomfortable for people who have been subjected to revenge porn sites with their names and photos published in porn websites by their ex-lovers. Furthermore, information about old crimes committed years ago by people hovers in the internet for public to view, and that puts the affected individuals who want to get their past forgotten in a state of sheer embarrassment. Keeping in mind the interests of such people, the court's ruling stands justified. However, the ruling has sparked a controversy between two groups of people, one in favor of right to privacy and the other in support of freedom of expression.

The proponents of the court's ruling give the following arguments,

Search engines must remove extremely personal and outdated information about a person or an organization from the search results, because it is a matter of "privacy and dignity" (Fletcher 2014). According to the founder of Reputation.com. Michael Fertik, when requested, Google removes the videos of Sony or Disney with no questions asked, but if someone's embarrassing personal video gets leaked in the internet, there is no option for it to be deleted (Rotenberg 2014). This is not right.
The right to be forgotten in no way interferes with the freedom of speech of people. In fact, it reinforces the right of an individual by clarifying on the rights he has regarding the data he uploaded personally on the internet (Fletcher 2014).
People have the right to live life the way they want. If somebody guilty of committing a crime 20 years back intends to change his or her future, seeking a quiet life, then he or she should be allowed that. The retention of information on the internet only creates discomfort for these people who seek to go beyond their past.
In the digital age when people make attempts to revenge an enemy by publishing falsified news or personal data, there should be a legal framework to put a restraint on such actions (Toobin 2014).

The opponents of the right to be forgotten give the following arguments:

The right to be forgotten is an impractical solution as the data once published online can be replicated, reposted, archived, and cached in a number of places on the internet, and hence, though Google might remove the data from the internet, it might remain still stored in some places around in the cyber world (Zittrain 2014).
The right to be forgotten interferes with the freedom of speech and impedes the free flow of information. It would particularly clash with the First Amendment of the US Constitution that protects the freedom of press and the freedom of speech (Warman and Barrett 2014).
The process of deleting history, even with the best of intentions, is an expensive solution as the cost of enforcing the rule will impose an excess financial burden on the search-engine companies (Streitfeld 2014).
The enforcement of the right to be forgotten or the data protection regulation would produce censorship on companies like Google and Facebook, who in order to avoid being fined under the act would be more likely to remove wholesale information from the internet, and this would interfere with the public's right to knowledge (Zittrain 2014).

Work Cited

Rotenberg, Marc. “The Right to Privacy Is Global”. The US News. 5 Dec. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 <http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-a-right-to-be-forgotten-on-the-internet/the-right-to-privacy-is-global>
Fletcher, Gordon. “The right to be forgotten is fundamental in the digital age”. The Conversation. 14 Jul 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 <http://theconversation.com/the-right-to-be-forgotten-is-fundamental-in-the-digital-age-28995>
Warman, Matt and Barrett, David. “Google must delete your data if you ask, EU rules”. The Telegraph. 13 may 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/10827005/Google-must-delete-your-data-if-you-ask-EU-rules.html>
Toobin, Jeffrey. “The Solace of Oblivion”. The New Yorker. 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 <http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion>
Streitfeld, David. “European Court Lets Users Erase Records on Web”. The New York Times. 13 May 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?_r=0>
Zittrain, Jonathan. “Europe's Bad Solution to a Real Problem”. The US News. 5 Dec. 2014. Web. 1 Feb. 2015 <http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-a-right-to-be-forgotten-on-the-internet/europes-bad-solution-to-a-real-problem>