In this paper, I will be discussing the concept of the “Right to Be Forgotten”. While there are a number of court cases associated with the “Right to Be Forgotten”, generally speaking, it has to do with the moral concept of deleting elements of one’s online presence, typically through the practice of delinking information from search engines. Before I get into a more general discussion of my topic, I will discuss the 2014 Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case related to the “Right to Be Forgotten”. The case is about the Spanish citizen Mario Costeja Gonzáles who felt his rights were violated by Google. In short, Gonzáles was troubled by the fact that Google Searches on his name highlighted an outdated foreclosure notice. Gonzáles felt this result unfairly and negatively represented him and therefore, wanted it taken down. The CJEU ruled that since Google was a controller of EU data, it was responsible for these links, and Google was ordered to take them down. Google submitted to the CJEU’s request. (Floridi) However, these sorts of rulings only affect the EU. Legislative protections to this extent are not yet available in the United States. (Noble 121-122) That being said, there may not be proper legislation to aid U.S. citizens in getting detrimental search results about them off search engines like Google. People’s pasts are no longer things of the past at all. Their controversial acts, posts, and occupations are now permanent and often highlighted on the first page of search results. Taking an intersectional approach, it also becomes apparent that people of color suffer from this sort of exploitation at disproportionate rates in comparison to white people. I will present multiple viewpoints on the issue of delinking harmful personal information. More specifically, I will provide a discussion of the pros and cons of the “Right to Be Forgotten”. Supporters of the “Right to Be Forgotten” argue that this sort of legislation gives citizens more control over their lives and allows them to come back from past mistakes. Those who oppose such legislation argue that laws such as the “Right to be Forgotten” set a dangerous precedent for what information should and should not be made public and apparent. Critics question whether or not requesting the deletion of certain links infringes on the general public’s ability to gain knowledge and express their thoughts online. I am taking the stance that laws such as the “Right to Be Forgotten” are essential for human autonomy as artificial intelligence (AI) becomes an increasingly powerful force in our lives. As in the case of Gonzáles, citizens should be able to request the deletion of links from search engines if the information on the web causes them unnecessary harm. Of course, there are many other hurdles related to artificial intelligence other than those related to the “Right to Be Forgotten”. The problem of control, which has to do with ensuring AI is a beneficial force in our lives, is complicated and is yet to be solved. That being said, implementing legislation that allows people to partially control what information is published about them is an excellent start to solving control issues related to AI.
First, I will consider the stance in support of the “Right to Be Forgotten”. The “Right to Be Forgotten” laws, and similar legislative proposals enable people to regain control of their lives and what information about them is available on the internet. Under such laws citizens would be able to have harmful personal information delinked. That being said there are limits to what can be delinked. Philosopher Luciano Floridi discusses some of the specifics of the “Right to be Forgotten” in his paper “‘The Right to Be Forgotten: a Philosophical View.” “ Delinking is not admissible when the personal information, which would no longer be easily accessible, matters to the public good. This seems obvious at first sight, but a moment of critical reflection shows that there are plenty of borderline cases in which it is quite difficult to decide when information is of public interest. This is why every request needs to be carefully analyzed individually, case by case, further empowering ISEOs.” (Luciano 14) In other words, delinking laws allow citizens to sustain their autonomy as more things move online, but we must be wary of what links can be taken down. Having links you feel uncomfortable with or that do not represent you as a person may cause unnecessary emotional distress. For example, younger generations with a lengthier digital footprint may find that information from their childhood is at the top of a search result when somebody searches for their name. Is it ethical to have somebody’s middle school blog posts come up as the first hit? People are finding that mistakes and embarrassing moments from their pasts are dictating their futures. People are unable to move on from mistakes and feel concerned that something as simple as a search result has the potential to ruin their future, especially their professional lives. Floridi argues that one negative narrative should not dictate the entire trajectory of somebody’s life. Failing to enact legislation such as the “Right to Be Forgotten” leads to avoidable anxieties for those who have information about them on the internet. (Floridi)
Author of Algorithms of Oppression Safiya Noble touches on the practical concerns about people’s pasts being made public online. Firstly, the first page of search results on somebody who has been arrested at any point and for any crime contains links to criminal records and mug shots. Noble points out that this practice disproportionately impacts people of color who are over-arrested in the U.S.. (Noble 124) Additionally, we must note the systemic issues in the U.S. that prevent marginalized communities from having the luxury of their pasts being viewed as socially acceptable and unproblematic. Noble includes a brief analysis of her conversations with past pornographers. She acknowledges that societal standards make it dangerous for some people’s past occupations in pornography to come to light. “In talking to some queer pornographers, I’ve learned that some of their former models are now elementary school teachers, clergy, professors, child care workers, lawyers, mechanics, health care professionals, bus drivers and librarians. We live in a society that is homophobic and not sex-positive.” (131 Noble) Considering that sex work for example is not socially acceptable, having a search result link to somebody’s pornographic past could be incredibly damaging to both their professional and personal lives. Laws like the “Right to Be Forgotten” would give people the power to take down links they feel misrepresent them and impact their lives in an overly negative way. Lastly, according to Sansgoo Lim, people should have the right to privacy and should be guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. That entails being able to permanently delete harmful personal information from search engines. (Lim)
I must consider the perspective of opponents of the “Right to Be Forgotten” laws. In the same article from Lim, he touches on the potential downsides of enacting the “Right to Be Forgotten” law or similar legislation in the U.S.. Lim acknowledges that the United States places a great deal of importance on freedom of speech, expression, and the right to information. It is possible that being able to delete information on certain people would limit those freedoms. Authors of certain posts may feel their right to free speech is being infringed upon. Individuals searching up people who have delinked information may feel that their right to full information has been infringed upon as well. Much of the foundation for U.S. legislation relies on amendments such as the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech and press. (Lim) Floridi also acknowledges that as rational agents we have a duty to acquire knowledge and remember things. He asserts that this may involve having access to as many resources as possible. (Floridi) Enacting the “Right to Be Forgotten” could set a dangerous precedent for the deletion of information. What if political candidates were able to delete information that the public needed to know in order to vote in a rational and fully informed manner? Floridi argues that a potential solution to this issue is ensuring that the publishers are fully involved in the process of delinking information. Not only that, but publishers must be involved in the early stages of delinking. Solely being informed about somebody’s request to have their information delinked is not sufficient. “[Publishers] should have the right to know about whether someone has requested search engine to delink some information that they legally published; to be informed about what decision has been taken by the search engine with regard to such a request; and to appeal, if they disagree with the delinking decision.” (Floridi 169) The key point here is that if the information was published legally, there may be solid reasoning to keep the information on Google or other major search engines. Floridi also acknowledges that more work must be done in order to ensure that delinking is fair in the sense that publishers and search engines do not abuse the privilege of being notified about delinking. However, Floridi is satisfied with the idea that publishers be involved at all for the time being. (Floridi 168-169)
I will be taking the stance that legislation such as the “Right to Be Forgotten” is essential to sustain human autonomy in the digital age. In order to make my case, I will present and discuss empirical examples related to erasure laws – laws which allow individuals to have harmful information about themselves removed from the internet – such as the “Right to Be Forgotten”. It can be shown that enacting such laws has positive effects on human rights. Moreover, failing to enact such laws causes overly negative effects that can be extremely detrimental to people’s personal and professional lives. In the case of Mario Costeja Gonzáles, he was able to regain control of his public image by requesting that harmful links about him be removed. In places such as the U.S. where “Right to Be Forgotten” laws are not common practice, people are still suffering the consequences of having their information exploited. Noble provides several real-life examples of people having their past lives resurface in a negative way. In many of these cases, erasure laws could have helped prevent people’s lives from being destroyed. On pages 119 and 120 Noble talks about how people’s sexual pasts, especially those related to the porn industry have resurfaced in a way that has caused people to be fired from their jobs and ostracized from their communities. For example, a teacher whose career within the porn industry had ceased still lost her job as her porn was still circulating on the internet. A college student was bullied and threatened by her school members after it came out that she paid for her college education by doing sex work. (Noble 121) If these women had the opportunity to request the deletion of their pornographic history they could have kept their jobs as well as their dignity. There is nothing inherently wrong with sex work, however, it is still something that is seen as socially unacceptable. This is also a practice that disproportionately impacts women, especially women of color. People should have the right to have search results about their pasts deleted in these sorts of cases, especially if the occupations aren’t current or relevant. Nonconsensual pornography laws have been put into place in some U.S. states in order to protect people. “Circulation of sexually explicit material has prompted thirty-four states to enact “revenge porn” laws or laws that address nonconsensual pornography (NCP), defined by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative as the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent. Laws currently range from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the nature of the offense.” (Noble 120-121) While NCP laws are a great start, they’re not enough on their own. For example, in the case of Gonzáles, the problematic search results were not sexual in nature, yet still negatively impacted his life. That being said, more expansive legislation is needed to cover a variety of cases. Implementing the “Right to Be Forgotten” laws in the United States could have a positive impact on human autonomy, as it would allow for a wider variety of reasons for delinking requests.
While there are some potential downsides to enacting laws such as the “Right to Be Forgotten”, ensuring that publishers are more involved in the delinking process has the potential to make it so the benefits outweigh the costs. Ensuring that those looking to delete their information undergo a fair process before erasure would ensure that people’s rights are not being infringed upon. It’s inevitable that the internet is going to become an increasingly prominent force in our lives. We must take action to ensure that people have control over what information about them is made public online. Legislation like the “Right to Be Forgotten” enables people to avoid unnecessary distress and regain control of their personal and professional lives on and offline.
Works Cited
Floridi, Luciano. “’The Right to Be Forgotten: A Philosophical View.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853478.
Lim, Sangsoo “Right to be Forgotten: from the Perspective of Information Ethics” Journal of Ethics 1.109 pp. 53-83 (2016): 53.
Noble, Safiya Umoja. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press, 2018.
