The Right to Oblivion

Recently, I came across this blog post that talked about a very interesting on-going debate related to online privacy, the conclusion of which could have far reaching consequences for many Internet users: the "right to be forgotten". And the author of the post is none other than Google's Global Privacy Counsel, Peter Fleischer.

It originated, as I see it, from the European Commission's proposal for inclusion of the Right to Oblivion (or "le Droit a l'Oubli", as it is known in French) in the next revision of the E-Privacy Directive, which is the European Union's attempt towards data protection and privacy online. For most of us, says Mr. Fleischer, this right basically means the power to "wash away digital muck" from our online lives.

Just think about what this could mean to you. It could mean the right to delete that humiliating photo/video of yours that someone posted against your will on Facebook before a thousand people "Like" it. It could mean people being able to make the Internet "forget" about their awful or stupid deeds. It could mean people being in truly complete control of their online lives. It could mean that we would be able to start anew, as we wish. It could mean a zillion other dizzying things.

There's always the flip side to consider, though. People could abuse this "right" if it isn't properly formulated and stated. They could tailor their online lives to show themselves in a favourable light wherever possible.

This begs the question: Should Internet users be allowed to just "erase" certain painful memories from their past, as though they never occurred in the first place? The answer to this question is a resounding NO, because that would mean that you could, in theory, dupe the Internet into thinking that you're the holiest person the world ever saw. I think this point does rather rubbish the claims of people who might support the right to oblivion, and effectively so. The past should not simply be forgotten, and it should definitely not be altered on the whims of certain people.

But I'm open to discussion. Let your arguments fly in the comments.

The Glitch

The Internet was taken by storm this past weekend with the news that 0.08% Gmail users had opened up their inboxes to find that all their emails had apparently gone up in thin air.

My point here is not to bore you with details of how users fretted on the Gmail Help Forum, how the screw up and subsequent recovery happened, or how tech sites had a field day picking apart Google's carrion and advising users to backup their email before it was gone for good.

My point here is to highlight our over-dependence on technology nowadays. Many of us have so much "important" stuff in the cloud that we can't imagine living without it or losing any of it. We practically live on the web these days, as I once told one of my equally geeky friends.

This applies not only to the web, but also to gadgets in general. But technology can also be dangerous, as we all know. Here's a classic example where technology shows its ugly side. It talks about how a couple from Nevada, USA blindly followed their GPS device's directions into a forest and were stranded there for 3 whole days.

And our reliance on technology is only increasing with time. That makes me wonder where we are headed. In the future, are we looking at a real Rise of the Machines? I mean, I'd hate to be under the control of a mere machine (though the scenario is interesting hypothetically, if nothing else).

I'm not against technology or anything like that. Hell, if anything, I'm one of its biggest fans ever.  I'm just wondering about what will happen after our dependence on machines becomes complete and absolute, because it cannot go on increasing indefinitely and must saturate sometime.

So, what are your views concerning this issue?