However, I believe that the opposition’s point of supporting the public’s “right to know” has merit, especially for those in positions of power and/or influence. I still believe that on a personal level we should still have this right. I believe that individuals should have the right to control what is posted by or about themselves, especially if it is not true, or can negatively affect their personal or professional lives. Additionally, as I mentioned in my comment for the blog post on Friday, it’s become increasingly common for videos to be taken and uploaded without consent. Having a “right to be forgotten” recognized would allow people to take the video down if they wished.
While there are important counter points to consider, I think that the U.S. Congress should recognize a "right to be forgotten" to help deal with a novel technological landscape where data is more permanent and accessible than ever. In practice this shouldn't be an absolute right since both freedom of expression and the public's right to know would be harmed by an absolute, blanket law allowing anyone to remove anything the referenced them. To achieve this balance there would need to be clear guidelines laying out when a person's right to be forgotten overrides these other considerations.
I think that the "right to be forgotten" as is law in the EU would be a helpful thing for individuals in the states. Nothing that the "right to be forgotten" addresses is something I feel outlandish or unfair. When looking at the list of when it does and doesn't apply, I don't see very many situations where individuals would be subject to an unfair withholding of their data. Also, I noticed that it helps protect users from when their data is unlawfully gathered or bought, along with protecting information of minors. And these are all good things.
Private services that give information a platform should be able to design their own policies regarding content uploading. As the internet is a decentralized protocol, I see no way of enforcing these laws off of such platforms, meaning the law only interests centralized entities capable of making their own decisions. Furthermore, privacy, which is a preference, requires a level of responsibility. I’m fine with saying certain kinds of content cannot be on private platforms, but allowing anyone to demand the removal of content containing their likeness just because they prefer it that way is not in line with a functional framework for operating a society. When there are meaningful interests—for example, those defined by our founders, including life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness—it can make sense for the government to mediate. Simple preferences between two private parties, however, is not something government should exist arbitrate.
Why should my preference of, for example, not being filmed in a public place, override the preference of another who desires to film in a public place? If this question cannot be answered, then government should stay out of it.
I think the most convincing statistic here is that more than 95% of requests for removal in Google's database were from ordinary individuals, and that this kind of data would have been much more difficult to access before the Internet.
I do agree that this shouldn't be blanket applied though, the UC Davis incident gives a good example of why. There's also a major issue with applying this right via individual lawsuits, as large corporations, politicians, etc. are the most financially able to litigate for the removal of their content, when those are also the most likely groups to have information about them actually be relevant to the public interest.
Firstly, the argument regarding the first amendment stands out to me. The freedom of press involves the freedom to communicate information, ideas, and news updates without acts of censorship. The “right to forget” would work against that amendment. What is the line between protecting an individual and protecting transparency for the public? The “right to be forgotten” would create a distorted version of what reality was and/or is. If information has, is, or will directly impact others, why should that be censored, hidden, distorted, or so on? However, there are some circumstances/categories of information released for revenge, or similar motivations, that should be dealt with differently, as that would target an individual more significantly than the public. Also, I do not think the authority should be entirely vested in internet companies to make these decisions; however, generally, information should be disclosed. An important factor to consider is its accuracy; incorrect information should not add confusion to the public. All in all, second chances can come from other places or in other ways without distorting information released to the public.
It DEPENDS: There are multiple opinions that should be taken seriously. As a fan of Volkhol and his stance on Title 7 I understand his perspective. After all, the digital age can not be restricted or stopped. Therefore, as Volkhol states, there the internet helps to make sure that you are not hiring a violent offender as your "babysitter" etc etc. Additionally, the United States has always had a stronger emphasis on freedom of speech than the EU, thus to model the EU Right to Forget law is a dangerous idea. However, there are multiple and deep caveats. Firstly, the argument that Volkhol presents is not wrong. The internet does assist in background checks on politicians, future employees, and others. However, this country was founded on people who made many mistakes in their youth. Hypothetically imagine if Washington never was allowed command of the Continental Army because of his past errors in the French and Indian War. Secondly, this country does have a right to free speech. But the internet allows an explosive atmosphere that demands regulation. Thus, the best option would be a middle ground. Each STATE(not federal government) should create laws that regulate(or dont regulate) outdated and false information on Google and other search engines. This process can be through a government website which evaluates the complaints and then chooses to delist the information.
Yes. Overall, I think that if the US Congress statutorily recognized the "right to be forgotten," the general population would be appreciative. There is a common stigma that the government "has eyes on everything," which, in that regard, I think that people would feel validated through their request for the delisting of personal data, searches, and excessive information. One factor to consider about this is that the people requesting this type of information are likely hiding something that may not want to be exposed. This could warrant information queues stalking, blackmailing, or fraud, which would catch the government's attention otherwise. The factor of balancing people's privacy I think, takes precedence over this risk.
YES.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that the opposition’s point of supporting the public’s “right to know” has merit, especially for those in positions of power and/or influence. I still believe that on a personal level we should still have this right. I believe that individuals should have the right to control what is posted by or about themselves, especially if it is not true, or can negatively affect their personal or professional lives. Additionally, as I mentioned in my comment for the blog post on Friday, it’s become increasingly common for videos to be taken and uploaded without consent. Having a “right to be forgotten” recognized would allow people to take the video down if they wished.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are important counter points to consider, I think that the U.S. Congress should recognize a "right to be forgotten" to help deal with a novel technological landscape where data is more permanent and accessible than ever. In practice this shouldn't be an absolute right since both freedom of expression and the public's right to know would be harmed by an absolute, blanket law allowing anyone to remove anything the referenced them. To achieve this balance there would need to be clear guidelines laying out when a person's right to be forgotten overrides these other considerations.
Yes
ReplyDeleteI think that the "right to be forgotten" as is law in the EU would be a helpful thing for individuals in the states. Nothing that the "right to be forgotten" addresses is something I feel outlandish or unfair. When looking at the list of when it does and doesn't apply, I don't see very many situations where individuals would be subject to an unfair withholding of their data. Also, I noticed that it helps protect users from when their data is unlawfully gathered or bought, along with protecting information of minors. And these are all good things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo
ReplyDeletePrivate services that give information a platform should be able to design their own policies regarding content uploading. As the internet is a decentralized protocol, I see no way of enforcing these laws off of such platforms, meaning the law only interests centralized entities capable of making their own decisions. Furthermore, privacy, which is a preference, requires a level of responsibility. I’m fine with saying certain kinds of content cannot be on private platforms, but allowing anyone to demand the removal of content containing their likeness just because they prefer it that way is not in line with a functional framework for operating a society. When there are meaningful interests—for example, those defined by our founders, including life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness—it can make sense for the government to mediate. Simple preferences between two private parties, however, is not something government should exist arbitrate.
Why should my preference of, for example, not being filmed in a public place, override the preference of another who desires to film in a public place? If this question cannot be answered, then government should stay out of it.
Yes
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing statistic here is that more than 95% of requests for removal in Google's database were from ordinary individuals, and that this kind of data would have been much more difficult to access before the Internet.
I do agree that this shouldn't be blanket applied though, the UC Davis incident gives a good example of why. There's also a major issue with applying this right via individual lawsuits, as large corporations, politicians, etc. are the most financially able to litigate for the removal of their content, when those are also the most likely groups to have information about them actually be relevant to the public interest.
No.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the argument regarding the first amendment stands out to me. The freedom of press involves the freedom to communicate information, ideas, and news updates without acts of censorship. The “right to forget” would work against that amendment. What is the line between protecting an individual and protecting transparency for the public? The “right to be forgotten” would create a distorted version of what reality was and/or is. If information has, is, or will directly impact others, why should that be censored, hidden, distorted, or so on? However, there are some circumstances/categories of information released for revenge, or similar motivations, that should be dealt with differently, as that would target an individual more significantly than the public. Also, I do not think the authority should be entirely vested in internet companies to make these decisions; however, generally, information should be disclosed. An important factor to consider is its accuracy; incorrect information should not add confusion to the public. All in all, second chances can come from other places or in other ways without distorting information released to the public.
It DEPENDS:
ReplyDeleteThere are multiple opinions that should be taken seriously. As a fan of Volkhol and his stance on Title 7 I understand his perspective. After all, the digital age can not be restricted or stopped. Therefore, as Volkhol states, there the internet helps to make sure that you are not hiring a violent offender as your "babysitter" etc etc. Additionally, the United States has always had a stronger emphasis on freedom of speech than the EU, thus to model the EU Right to Forget law is a dangerous idea. However, there are multiple and deep caveats. Firstly, the argument that Volkhol presents is not wrong. The internet does assist in background checks on politicians, future employees, and others. However, this country was founded on people who made many mistakes in their youth. Hypothetically imagine if Washington never was allowed command of the Continental Army because of his past errors in the French and Indian War. Secondly, this country does have a right to free speech. But the internet allows an explosive atmosphere that demands regulation. Thus, the best option would be a middle ground. Each STATE(not federal government) should create laws that regulate(or dont regulate) outdated and false information on Google and other search engines. This process can be through a government website which evaluates the complaints and then chooses to delist the information.
Yes. Overall, I think that if the US Congress statutorily recognized the "right to be forgotten," the general population would be appreciative. There is a common stigma that the government "has eyes on everything," which, in that regard, I think that people would feel validated through their request for the delisting of personal data, searches, and excessive information. One factor to consider about this is that the people requesting this type of information are likely hiding something that may not want to be exposed. This could warrant information queues stalking, blackmailing, or fraud, which would catch the government's attention otherwise. The factor of balancing people's privacy I think, takes precedence over this risk.
ReplyDelete