Tweet
"right to be forgotten" thread
Most of us know about this already, but here's what I'm referring to:
What do you guys think about this?
I had a thought related to this (thus prompting the thread). If we have a right to be forgotten from search engines, do we also have a right to be forgotten from say, a corporate database?
Perhaps it's best to also make a distinction between data... public and private. Does the kind of data matter?
I think so.
There's no way I would support a convicted child rapist's request to have all mention of his crimes erased. That's unconscionable. You can erase mentions of your goddamn crime when you invent a time machine and go stop the crime from happening.
What if a business has your driver's license number or social security in their records (or country/region specific equivalent)? What if you don't trust that company's ability to keep your data secure (or private)? Should you have the right to compel a company to erase your data? Should you be allowed to pursue legal action against companies who have made such data public, even by result of security breaches?
Should it be illegal to share/sell a person's private information without their consent?
The consent part might get tricky. This author summarizes the issue much better than I can.
F Kessler, ‘Contracts of Adhesion--Some thoughts about Freedom of Contract (1943) 43 Columbia Law Review 629, 631-2
If you feel strongly that this doesn't matter, that's fine. Feel free to offer any thoughts on the matter. I'm preemptively agreeing to disagree with you.
The right to be forgotten is a concept that has been discussed and put into practice in the European Union (EU) (most notably France) and Argentina in recent years. The concept stems from the desire of an individual to ‘determine the development of his life in an autonomous way, without being perpetually or periodically stigmatized as a consequence of a specific action performed in the past.’[1] There is discussion about the viability of the elevation of the right to be forgotten into the status of an international human right due to the vagueness of the concept.[2] There are concerns about its impact on the right to freedom of expression, its interaction with the right to privacy, and whether creating a right to be forgotten would decrease the quality of the internet through censorship and a rewriting of history.[3]
What do you guys think about this?
I had a thought related to this (thus prompting the thread). If we have a right to be forgotten from search engines, do we also have a right to be forgotten from say, a corporate database?
Perhaps it's best to also make a distinction between data... public and private. Does the kind of data matter?
I think so.
There's no way I would support a convicted child rapist's request to have all mention of his crimes erased. That's unconscionable. You can erase mentions of your goddamn crime when you invent a time machine and go stop the crime from happening.
What if a business has your driver's license number or social security in their records (or country/region specific equivalent)? What if you don't trust that company's ability to keep your data secure (or private)? Should you have the right to compel a company to erase your data? Should you be allowed to pursue legal action against companies who have made such data public, even by result of security breaches?
Should it be illegal to share/sell a person's private information without their consent?
The consent part might get tricky. This author summarizes the issue much better than I can.
"In so far as the reduction of costs of production and distribution thus achieved is reflected in reduced prices, society as a whole ultimately benefits from the use of standard contracts… The use of contracts has, however, another aspect which has become increasingly important. Standard contracts are typically used by enterprises with strong bargaining power. The weaker party, in need of the goods or services, is frequently not in a position to shop around for better terms, either because the author of the standard contract has a monopoly (natural or artificial) or because all competitors use the same clauses. His contractual intention is but a subjection more or less voluntary to terms dictated by the stronger party, terms whose consequences are often understood only in a vague way, if at all."
If you feel strongly that this doesn't matter, that's fine. Feel free to offer any thoughts on the matter. I'm preemptively agreeing to disagree with you.
Comment