 |
| A guy with no identity |
An EU court ruling has
taken a step towards giving people the "right to be forgotten", forcing
Google and other search engines to remove certain links from search
results. But what kind of things do people normally want to be forgotten
online, asks Chris Stokel-Walker.
Mario Costeja Gonzalez wants Google to stop displaying
a search result showing that his house had been auctioned after he ran
into financial difficulties 16 years ago. His case could have
far-reaching consequences.
A law giving users "the right to be forgotten" was first
proposed two years ago. But Google opposes the move and anti-censorship
campaign Index on Censorship has warned about the dangers of allowing
people to whitewash their personal history.
But who might make use of the new law, and why?
Strident views
Paris Brown, who was for six short days
the UK's first youth police and crime commissioner last year, might
provide an example of the kind of person who might want the option of
the right to forget rules. Brown, then 17, had posted comments to
Twitter when she was aged 14-16 that could have been interpreted as
homophobic and racist. In a statement at the time of her resignation,
she denied she held unpleasant views and said that she had "fallen into
the trap of behaving with bravado on social networking sites". The top
result on a Google search for Brown today is a Daily Mail article
calling her "foul-mouthed" and "offensive".
At the time of Paris Brown's public downfall, Ann Barnes,
Kent's adult police and crime commissioner, told reporters : "I'm sure
many people today would not have the jobs they are in if their thoughts
in their teenage years were scrutinised."
Young candidates being Googled by employers
Employers regularly Google prospective candidates to learn
about their history - negative images and posts are then viewed very
briefly, out of context, in a way that can transform something slightly
inadvisable into a real obstacle to even getting an interview.
One university student, who did not wish to be named, says
she could imagine potentially using the right to be forgotten in the
future. "People often say that potential employers Google or Facebook
your name. There are pictures of me next to toilets full of vomit, and
drunken pictures in nightclubs. Things make their way online that I
would rather potential employers or future partners didn't see."
Domestic violence victims
There's a more serious side even than dented unemployment prospects.
Victims of domestic abuse often face a situation where a
violent ex-partner is trying to track them down. The victims are often
named in media reports about their partners' crimes. Details about
unhappy relationships and harrowing tales of violence can be permanently
associated with their names, even as they want to move on to a new life
of independence and freedom.
Because of that, the #EU's recent decision is a good thing,
believes Polly Neate, the chief executive of Women's Aid, an
anti-domestic violence charity. "We welcome changes which would give
survivors of domestic violence more control over their personal details
online," she says. But what would be better is ensuring victims aren't
named in the first place.
"Too many news outlets perpetuate misleading stereotypes of
domestic violence, perpetrators, and victims; report stories in a
sensationalist way; and can put women and children at risk of
retaliation. The media has a responsibility to ensure that stories about
domestic violence don't do further damage to the survivor or impact on
her recovery."
Spent convictions
In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows
convictions to be "spent" after a certain period of time. For instance,
anyone sentenced to less than six months in prison has their conviction
become spent after seven years.
Spent convictions typically do not need to be disclosed to
employers, but it's easy to see how a Google search result could void
any possible benefit from the act.
Asylum seekers
Many asylum seekers have concerns about their whereabouts
being known, says Andy Warmington, who helps run Crossings, an arts
charity based in the north east of England, which works with immigrants.
Members are fleeing from complicated situations in their home
countries. Warmington can see the positive points for those he works
with of being able to wipe clean one's online record.
"Being able to contact Google or Facebook and have their data
removed entirely gives them control over their fear, and the risks they
perceive they're facing," he says.
Streisand effect
But those fighting for the right to have something forgotten should be wary of the "
Streisand effect".
Named after the singer and actor Barbara Streisand, proponents suggest
that the mere act of trying to suppress a piece of information on the
internet can backfire spectacularly. Streisand reportedly attempted to
suppress photos of her beachside home, but media coverage of the action
massively increased the number of people viewing the photos.
Or there's the case of Max Mosley who has taken legal action
to force Google to stop linking to images of him during an orgy with
prostitutes because of the breach of his privacy. He has been successful in his action but the net result does of course increase the level of references to the episode.
Source:
BBC News
