The Right to be Forgotten

Background

The case study titled “The Right to be Forgotten” (RTBF) analyzes the efforts by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to have leading internet-based companies, particularly Google, remove the personal data and information of individuals. In June 2014, following the ruling by the CJEU, the giant tech company, Google, started removing particular search engine query results. The verdict gives people the right to file for the removal of particular internet links to personal information that can be found through a search of their names. This ruling on the RTBF marked a new beginning to digital privacy on the basis that people have a right to control their online public image and personal information.

The decision by the CJEU came about following a lawsuit filed by Mario Gonzalez Costeja, a Spanish citizen, in 2010 against Google Inc., Google Spain, and a Spanish newspaper – which had dragged his name to an auction dated a few years back. The newspaper read that Gonzalez’s house had been auctioned and was listed in the market to settle his debts. A search for the name ‘Gonzalez’ straightaway returned the newspaper notice link as the principal query result. On his part, the plaintiff’s legal team argued that the foreclosure case had been resolved and settled several years ago. Gonzalez’s team further argued that the reference to this past event was not only irrelevant and inaccurate but also an assault and attack on his privacy based on the interpretation in the EU Data Protection Directive – a digital era privacy policy that controls personal data in the twenty-eight nations that constitute the EU. The plaintiff, therefore, made a request that the Spanish newspaper alters or removes the information printed on the pages it posted on the Internet. He also requested that Google Inc. and Google Spain delete the link between the auction notice and his name as printed in the newspaper. Gonzalez complained that linking his name to this previous event tarnished his reputation as an attorney. Thousands of such complaints had also been filed to the CJEU by Europeans requesting Google to delete links attached to their names, claiming that they are irrelevant, inaccurate, inappropriate, and meddle with their privacy.

On their side, the accused (Google) contested the case by arguing that the privacy data rules in the EU did not apply to it because the server offering all the search results was situated outside the zone. Google also argued that a search engine was responsible for providing the links to private data stored by third parties, not a data repository. Thus, it was not its responsibility to account for the relevance and accuracy of the data kept by other firms. Google also claimed that it would be challenging or nearly impossible to address the millions or thousands of requests to delete all the links, provided that these rights can possibly give corrupt public officers, sexual predators, fraudsters, and criminals a leeway to have their information also removed.

In 2014, in its verdict, the European court ruled that the privacy and data policies of the European Union were not restricted by region, meaning that they apply to all search engines irrespective of their location. The court also gave Europeans a right to protect their private information by requesting the removal of their data from web links if it is irrelevant, inadequate, inaccurate, and can interfere with their lives. Google has since then initiated, although reluctantly, several efforts to delete and filter inappropriate links in Europe. The ruling by the CJEU has created a rift between the powerful American online companies, including U.S. laws, and the EU legislation. More similar legislation is only expected in the future that will give people more power to control the privacy of their data shared through various online platforms.

Issues

The Meaning of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF)

The term RTBF simply implies the right to have personal and private data or information deleted or altered from internet search engines and other directories under certain situations. The concept has been widely debated and implemented in Argentina and the European Union. The right to be forgotten is an issue that stems from the desire of citizens to have full control of their private data in an independent manner, particularly when using the Internet, without being periodically and perpetually stigmatized or confronted due to their past actions. One of the major controversies surrounding the concept of RTBF is its practicability as a global human right, partly because of the ambiguity of present laws and jurisdictions trying to put into action this right. Also, there are concerns about the effect of this right on other rights, such as freedom of expression, the interaction of this right with the right to privacy, as well as whether allowing people to have the RTBF might hamper the quality of the Internet via rewriting of history and censorship.

Applicability: Why RTBF Should Apply to Search Engines like Google

The main reason the RTBF rule should apply to online search tools, including Google, Yahoo, and many others, is that these engines largely are “controllers” of personal data and information. According to Laudon & Traver (2019), allowing search engines this privilege violates individuals’ right to privacy. Additionally, some of the information propagated by these engines might be wrong, inappropriate, outdated, and damaging to a person’s reputation. Before the CJEU ruling in 2014, Google and other search engines were exempted from the data privacy rule and considered just processors of internet information. The CJEU granted this right to remove links to private information in online sources if it is irrelevant, inadequate, inaccurate, or poses excessive economic interest.

E-Commerce Concerns with RTBF and Privacy Policies

The major e-commerce problem with the application of privacy policies and RTBF stems from the fact that inaccuracies, falsifications, and inappropriate information through online search engines, as well as repository sites, might damage the reputation of individuals in business or in private operations. A damaged reputation might result in lost economic opportunities and income. This is clearly the grounds on which Gonzalez filed a case against Google Inc., Google Spain, and a Spanish newspaper in 2010. On his part, Gonzalez argued that the fact that the three parties were linking him to a past case in which his house was being auctioned and listed in the market to settle his debts – even though the case was resolved and closed several years back – was hurting his law firm financially. It tarnished his online reputation and the performance of his business.

Taking a Side

Although the arguments against deleting links attached to past personal data have their fair share of disadvantages – such as allowing sexual offenders, fraudsters, and criminals to rewrite history – I think the case for the enforcement of the right-to-be-forgotten is stronger. There is surely a need to regulate the accuracy, appropriateness, and relevance of information search engines (as processors) allow to be transmitted in their platforms, as well as the information individual repository websites print on their pages. People have the autonomy to access and control their data, including online information, and no one should be allowed to take this immediately. This rule should apply to huge American tech companies, including Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook, that have been recently accused of using complex technologies and machine learning tools to monitor and track users.

Summary

The case study “The Right to Be Forgotten” explores the efforts by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to have leading internet-based companies, particularly Google, remove personal data and information of individuals. The term RTBF refers to the right to have personal and private data or information deleted or altered from internet search engines and other directories under certain situations. The right to be forgotten is an issue that stems from the desire of citizens to have full control of their private data in an independent manner, particularly when using the Internet, without being periodically and perpetually stigmatized or confronted due to their past actions. Even though arguments against deleting links attached to past personal data has its fair share of setbacks – like allowing sexual offenders, fraudsters, and criminals to rewrite history – I think the case for the enforcement of the right to be forgotten is stronger. It fosters online data privacy and ensures that search engines and other giant online tech firms responsibly transmit and store personal data.

References

Laudon, K. C., & Traver, C. G. (2019). E-commerce 2018 (14^th ed.). Pearson

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question

Case Study: The Right to Be Forgotten

The case method is an excellent learning tool as well as an important assessment instrument. It helps develop your ability to synthesize textbook material and various situational factors. With this case study, you will be meeting the following learning outcomes:

The Right to be Forgotten

Discuss ethical, social, and political issues with regards to e-commerce.
Discuss how the Internet is governed, and related public safety and welfare issues.

Assignment: Review the case study: The Right to Be Forgotten: Europe Leads on Internet Privacy located on pages 503-505 of the textbook. Perform the following:

Discuss what is meant by the right to be forgotten (RTBF).
Considering that RTBF does not apply to print media (newspapers, magazines, and so on), why should RTBF apply to search engines like Google?
What concerns should e-commerce businesses have with RTBF and privacy policies? Consider your group project when answering this question.
Take a side: where do you stand on RTBF? Should it be absolute? Justify your opinion.

Organize your paper in the following sections:

Background – Summarize the case study (textbook pages 503-505).
Issues – (Discuss RTBF, Applicability, E-commerce concerns, Take a side).
Summary – Summarize the relevant conclusions and findings.
Resources – List the case study (textbook pages 503-505) and at least two other sources researched for this paper. Ensure that the resources are also properly cited in the body of the work.

Your work should be submitted in a Word document, 4-6 pages in length (not including cover sheet), typed in double-space, in 10- or 12-point Arial or Times New Roman font. The page margins on the top, bottom, left side, and right side should be 1 inch each. Use the APA guidelines for writing and citations. Resources listed in the Resources section without an accompanying citation in the body of the work will not be accepted.

Textbook

The Right to be Forgotten