This blog posting represents the views of the author, David Fosberry. Those opinions may change over time. They do not constitute an expert legal or financial opinion.

If you have comments on this blog posting, please email me .

The Opinion Blog is organised by threads, so each post is identified by a thread number ("Major" index) and a post number ("Minor" index). If you want to view the index of blogs, click here to download it as an Excel spreadsheet.

Click here to see the whole Opinion Blog.

To view, save, share or refer to a particular blog post, use the link in that post (below/right, where it says "Show only this post").

The right to be forgotten

Posted on 4th June 2014

Show only this post
Show all posts in this thread.

There has been a lot of news lately about "the right to be forgotten":

As pointed out in the last of the above news storied, there has been a flood of requests to be forgotten. Some of the examples given in the second story seem completely inappropriate. I have several issues with this whole situation.

Why only Google?

Why has Google, of all the search providers, been singled out to implement this "right to be forgotten"? If it is really a right, why do we only have this right when people search for information about us using Google? I didn't think that rights were supposed to work like that.

Why only search providers?

The whole point of the court ruling is that obsolete information about us should be hidden (or censored, as Jimmy Wales correctly labels it). So why is the ruling not about the actual sources of that information: the articles containing the obsolete information? I really don't see why it should be the responsibility of Google, Bing, Yahoo, etc.

Since when do we have a right to be forgotten?

The language now being used about the supposed "right to be forgotten" suggests that it is an inalienable human right. Sorry, but it isn't, and I don't think that it should be. There are existing laws (laws governing libel) which protect us all from the publishing of false and misleading statements. If published information is correct, then it is legal to publish it.

There are existing legal mechanisms to suppress certain information: juvenile criminal records and information which people (e.g. potential employers and banks) might use to form illegal prejudiced opinions about us. Apart from that legally supported censorship, data about us is generally in the public interest. I do want to know if a convicted child molester becomes my neighbour; I want to be able to find out if someone has been bankrupt before I lend them money; I want to know if someone has a criminal record before offering them a job. I feel that I have a right to find this information on the Internet. I do not feel that my rights to protect myself, my family, my company or employer, and my assets are ensured by this bizarre court ruling.

What about my rights as a publisher?

I also do not feel that my rights as a blogger are protected by this ruling. Admittedly, I still have a right to publish what I choose, as long as it is accurate and fair, but what good is that if my blogs are censored out by the search provider due to a request to be forgotten by some whinger. Blogging is dependent upon search providers, and there is no point in publishing material if it then censored.

As many sources of news change to online only, due to the costs of print-based publishing, and many new sources of news and opinion spring up on the Internet, this kind of legally sanctioned censorship could threaten to undermine the validity and coverage of online information, and impact our way of life. This ruling must be overturned, and soon.!