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.
4 comments:
I pretty much agree with your view of the theory, " .. you could, in theory, dupe the Internet into thinking that you're the holiest person the world ever saw .. ". In fact the moment I read about the law, I was pretty much surprised as to why something like this must exist. But the answer is not very hard. I think you and I were born at the right time at the right place. To put it better, when we were given the access to internet, we were also told by our parents and guardians about a few of the possible drawbacks and not having a free access to cameras back then just facilitated their control over us. Now we know what ALL could happen to a photograph that we share on the Internet; for all you know, it might come back to you in a mail-chain. But consider the present-day scenario. Children have access to the Internet and all sorts of thing without much control. Result ? Devastating. Someone might post a picture of himself/herself posing for the camera, but someone, somewhere might look at it with a different eye. And when you want to delete it, its just not possible. In such cases, the need of such a law becomes clear. But even if it IS deleted from the Internet, can it be deleted from the computers that have it.
A video that shows this is here :-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbpKawqA6VQ
You have a good point there about us being born at the right time, alongside the birth of the Web.
I realised there are basically 2 opposing but equally sensible arguments in this debate: the right to data relating to you (in favour of this law), and your right to the freedom of expression (against it). Both make sense, and both contradict each other. That is why this matter cannot be put to rest easily, I think.
how can the right to expression be against this law...its u whu r expressing it in the first place, aint it? if so then u have full right to remove it.
n if sm1 else is expressing smthing against u regarding urself against ur wishes den ofcourse it has to be wrong...
@RXG: think of it this way: Imagine you're a journalist and you uncover a financial scam involving some person, subsequently publishing a news report about it. Then should the accused be given the right to remove all copies of that report from the web? Here, both the opposing arguments make sense from different points of view. That is the dilemma at its most basic, as I see it. Also, the fact that anyone can make copies of your data (if it's publicly available) complicates matters significantly and introduces ownership dilemmas.
Post a Comment