Is the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Coming to America?

Free-speech concerns abound when users are allowed to erase the Internet.

National Journal
Dustin Volz
Add to Briefcase
Dustin Volz
May 13, 2014, 6:30 a.m.

Europe’s highest court ruled Tues­day that Google must al­low its users to de­lete links about them­selves that they find em­bar­rass­ing, out­dated, or un­sa­vory — a wide-reach­ing judg­ment that will af­fect oth­er search gi­ants and po­ten­tially so­cial-me­dia sites as well.

The court de­term­ined that European pri­vacy laws grant a per­son the right to have cer­tain links con­tain­ing private in­form­a­tion ex­punged from a search query, even when they are law­ful. Be­cause the search of a per­son’s name dis­plays what can be con­sidered a per­son­al pro­file, that in­form­a­tion should be sub­ject to some per­son­al pri­vacy pro­tec­tions. Google and its brethren, there­fore, hold some re­spons­ib­il­ity for the con­tent they dis­play.

Back­ers of the “right to be for­got­ten” quickly hailed the de­cision. Vivi­ane Red­ing, the European com­mis­sion­er for justice, trum­peted the de­cision on Face­book as “a clear vic­tory for the pro­tec­tion of per­son­al data of Europeans.”

The rul­ing, while sur­pris­ing to some leg­al ob­serv­ers, fol­lows years of bold at­tempts by the Europe Uni­on and oth­er coun­tries, such as Ar­gen­tina, to ush­er in more di­git­al pri­vacy pro­tec­tions, even as the In­ter­net be­comes a place where most people are will­ing to share ever-in­creas­ing amounts of per­son­al data on the web.

So, is the right to be for­got­ten com­ing to Amer­ica?

While lim­ited forms of such a “right” do ex­ist in some states, such a sweep­ing, carte blanche stand­ard is un­likely any­time soon, if a chor­us of free-speech evan­gel­ists are any in­dic­a­tion. Jef­frey Rosen, a law pro­fess­or at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity, took to the Stan­ford Law Re­view in 2012 to call the right to be for­got­ten the “biggest threat to free speech on the In­ter­net in the com­ing dec­ade.”

Rosen’s ar­gu­ment cen­ters on the idea that Amer­ica’s cher­ished free-speech prin­ciples ward against such data de­le­tion, and that the right to be for­got­ten is a veiled form of cen­sor­ship that could al­low for all sorts of ab­uses.

Rosen ex­plains (em­phas­is ad­ded):

In the­ory, the right to be for­got­ten ad­dresses an ur­gent prob­lem in the di­git­al age: it is very hard to es­cape your past on the In­ter­net now that every photo, status up­date, and tweet lives forever in the cloud. But Europeans and Amer­ic­ans have dia­met­ric­ally op­posed ap­proaches to the prob­lem. In Europe, the in­tel­lec­tu­al roots of the right to be for­got­ten can be found in French law, which re­cog­nizes le droit à l’oubli — or the “right of ob­li­vi­on” — a right that al­lows a con­victed crim­in­al who has served his time and been re­hab­il­it­ated to ob­ject to the pub­lic­a­tion of the facts of his con­vic­tion and in­car­cer­a­tion. In Amer­ica, by con­trast, pub­lic­a­tion of someone’s crim­in­al his­tory is pro­tec­ted by the First Amend­ment, lead­ing Wiki­pe­dia to res­ist the ef­forts by two Ger­mans con­victed of mur­der­ing a fam­ous act­or to re­move their crim­in­al his­tory from the act­or’s Wiki­pe­dia page.

Put more plainly, Europe has ad­op­ted form­al rights to pri­vacy, while the U.S. has al­ways been more am­bigu­ous on the is­sue. Our Con­sti­tu­tion lacks any form­al de­clar­a­tion of an in­nate right to pri­vacy, mean­ing such mat­ters are of­ten left to the states.

Rosen and oth­ers ad­di­tion­ally point to the way Amer­ic­an jur­is­pru­dence ap­plies dif­fer­ent pri­vacy stand­ards to private and pub­lic en­tit­ies. Should an elec­ted of­fi­cial prone to vir­al gaffes (the com­par­is­ons are in­fin­ite, but pic­ture an Amer­ic­an ver­sion of Toronto May­or Rob Ford if it helps) be al­lowed to scrub the In­ter­net of com­prom­ising pho­tos from a re­cent night out? Does the pub­lic in­terest in hav­ing ac­cess to in­tim­ate de­tails of that of­fi­cial’s life su­per­sede pri­vacy con­cerns? Celebrit­ies and politi­cians pos­sess looser pri­vacy pro­tec­tions in the U.S., and that nu­ance fur­ther com­plic­ates any right to be for­got­ten rules.

Google and its fel­low tech ti­tans, whose busi­ness mod­els mean they have no in­terest in play­ing cen­sor, are no stranger to pri­vacy chal­lenges. Tues­day’s de­cision by the European Court of Justice in Lux­em­bourg marks just the latest ex­ample of the pro­found leg­al ques­tions the rap­idly ex­pand­ing di­git­al world presents.

Whatever the res­ults, the In­ter­net is still a place where just about any­thing can be found if someone looks hard enough. And that’s true wheth­er the U.S. ad­opts the right-to-be-for­got­ten rules or not.

What We're Following See More »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
5 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login