Why should we lobbying the "Right to be Forgotten"

-
With concerns over the proliferation of the internet especially regarding online privacy, data protection authorities mainly of those in France, Spain and Italy have desired a more modernised version of the Data Protection Regulation (1995). The 'right to be forgotten', Article 17 of the EU Data Protection Directive, was proposed in the new general Data Protection, by the EU Justice Commissioner, to strengthen public control over public data.  Article 17 helps individuals better manage data-protection risks online by allowing them to demand erasure of data they have supplied that they no longer wish to be processed or when there is no legitimate reason for retention of the data.
 

“the proposed European legislation will seriously alter the structure of the Internet" - Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington University 

 Although the Data regulation laws need to be updated, the 'right to be forgotten' is deemed to be impractical, unrealistic and its penalties unenforceable for the following reasons. 
  1. The title raises an unfair expectation of the proposal as the controls proposed will be relatively modest in their impact on the way data spread and is traded across websites. It is improbable to be able to remove content from all sites on the World Wide Web as data as content can be easily duplicated. At the same time, though data may be removed from European websites and search engines, it is unrealistic to expect countries outside the EU to comply. For example ‘google.co.uk’ may be able to eliminate content from its search; however it may still be visible on ‘google.com’. As a company operating from the US, the European data directive does not apply to its search engines. In order to fulfil the new proposal it may take up resources and won’t be effective. 
  1. The proposal also exploits censorship and affects the freedom of expression expressed as article 10 in the European Convention on Human Rights. The internet is now a digitalized media with new services contributing to public information, facilitate access to information and ideas and provide platforms for socialization, discussion and debate. Requesting search engines to suppress legitimate and legal information that has entered public domain would entail an interface with the freedom of expression.  
  1. The new proposal will also contradict other articles in the Data Protection Act. Content is deemed lawful if it meets at least one of these criteria’s: consent, legal obligations, fulfils a contract or protects life. Journalism, defined in the Data Protection Act is excused from requirement to meet one of the conditions as it is not a consent based process. This thus brings into debate whether journalism is only by journalist or if leaving opinions online on blogs and etc contribute. NPR Science correspondent Robert Krulwich claims that Article 17 will be a violation of free speech.  
  1. Removing data and content will also redefine history and oppose the right to remember. There should not be restrictions on the legality of publishing historic events. There is a case study in Germany where by two men who committed murder, get convicted, serve time, on release desired their names to be removed from Wikipedia. Should records of history be removed from public information just to bury bad news? As quoted from ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ referring to an Orwellian state “he who controls the past controls the future”. At the same time references should be available and should not prevent the people from learning of a politician’s bribe or a medical malpractice. This information adds not only to social and politically integrity of the state but also to the safety of the general public, public interest and research.  
  1. The current Data Protection Act has already sufficient procedures in place regarding the public control over data.  At present a citizen can request removal of content if data is incomplete or incorrect. Regarding social networking sites, it is also argued that when you sign up to the terms and conditions you are made aware of their privacy procedures. Facebook claims that they are under no illusions. The site allows people to control who views posts and also allows the deletion of posts.  
Article 17 presents false assumptions that it has the capabilities to perform the proposal. If implemented, the ‘right to be forgotten’ will also violate fundamental rights such as the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech. At the same time the Article can hinder public safety rather than protect. The internet should be allowed to continue as a digital media without the ‘right to be forgotten’.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How useful is Locke’s theory of private property today?

-
If a man was to pour a drop his orange juice, in which he laboured to make, into the ocean… does this therefore give him the rights and ownership to the sea? The idea of property depicts the claims to rights of ownership, control and employment to either common or private land. John Locke explores essentially the idea that if he mixes and applies his labour i.e. farming the land it becomes his property. “Whatsoever then he removes out of the state of nature… he hath mixed his labour with, and joined it with something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. Locke’s theory on private property can be argued to have been proven useful when it is beneficial, when it helps and serves the individual, but yet it is ignored otherwise. What I mean by this is that, Locke’s theory of private property is useful to help justify materialism and economic justice. Yet in terms of the current international system and states relations with one and another, human rights, poli...
Read more

The Decline of the American World Order

-
It is not the fall of America but the fall of the West, led by America, which contributes towards  the decline of American hegemony and its world order. Their current military and economic  state permits their hard power to be unchallenged. America overtook Britain as the leading  producers of the world’s wealth in 1876 and now rests on a GDP of 16 trillion dollars . At the same time it acts as the world’s leader for Foreign Direct Investment [FDI] at 180  billion dollars, twice that of its nearest competitors. With 4,600 nuclear warheads available for  distribution, another 2,700 in storage and spending a massive 560 billion a year on defence,  America consequently owns the world’s most powerful military. As much as  America succeeds in being the dominant player in terms of hard power, superior military and  economic power does not necessarily translate to geopolitical influence. Cultural influence or as  IR Scholar Joseph Nye states ‘soft ...
Read more

Was Hobbes right in prioritising security above liberty?

-
In order to be able to break down the question, we must understand the individual concepts; the role of national security and the meaning of liberty. National security maintains the survival of the states through the use of economics, diplomacy, political and military power to isolate threats internal and external and the protection of classified information. Liberty is the freedom within a state, and is considered to be a factor which should work side by side with security in a social contract. The idea of liberty is the individual rights to self and the understanding of individual roles and responsibilities in to society in relation to concepts of free will. Security for the people is protection from individual man, and the protection of the state. Hobbes idea that security should supersede liberty is easily understandable and justifiable as life is one of the few natural and fundamentally concepts we fight to preserve and protect. In times of instability and frequent wars, li...
Read more