We keep hearing that the Right to be Forgotten could mark the end of free speech that will have dire consequences. In reality a more balanced view should be taken, as it certainly isn’t the first step taken by Europe towards web censorship.
I believe there is a need for some governance, but I want to be clear: I don’t believe it should be used as an invisibility blanket for anyone looking to cover up their past. It is designed for ordinary individuals, whose lives are not in the public interest.
Politicians trying to hide any involvement in the expenses scandal, for example, shouldn’t be able to use the law to hide from their wrong doings. That past behaviour is in the public interest, and therefore should remain visible through search results. Let’s be clear here, the primary content isn’t removed, only links to the content, disabling the result appearing in an online search.
The issues around personal privacy vs public interest arise when those search results are misleading, inaccurate, outdated and even wrong. When a person feels misrepresented by their search results, it can have a devastating impact on the individual’s personal and professional reputation. For example, an employee going through a messy breakup shouldn’t suffer because their ex decides to write a vicious blog. It is this digital dignity that this law gives back to the individual.
The Court was right to try to tip the scales back toward personal privacy. Why should innocent people suffer from a distorted online reputation? We should have the right to manage our own reputations online.
However, perception and subjectivity is at the heart of this law. Not just in what it aims to achieve for privacy but also in how it is interpreted, and ultimately how it is applied. Who decides what is and isn’t in the public interest? What is outdated and inaccurate versus current and very much personal opinion?
Out of the 120,000 requests that have been submitted to Google since the inception of the EU ruling, more than 50% have been approved and removed. However, what happens to the other 50% that were rejected and on what grounds?
Google along with the other major search engines is holding seven public meetings across Europe in the coming months to debate the issues raised by the ruling. A move that has been welcomed by the European Commission, and those involved in digital privacy.
The European data protection regulators recently met to draft guidelines on the right to be forgotten for all search engines to ensure consistency in handling these requests. The guidelines, which are expected to be finalised by the end of November, will define a clear framework for the major search engines to adhere to when processing Right to be Forgotten requests. This will enable data authorities to balance the public's right to know, with the individual's right to privacy.
Search Engines can’t continue to be judge and juror on matters that affect the innocent. As the ruling matures, it is important the right processes are put in place to make sure we aren’t creating a world of web censorship.
By Richard Harrison, MD, UK of Reputation.com.
PrivSec Conferences will bring together leading speakers and experts from privacy and security to deliver compelling content via solo presentations, panel discussions, debates, roundtables and workshops.
For more information on upcoming events, visit the website.
comments powered by Disqus