No. I believe that enacting such a law would just create more controversy because we would then have to decide what can and can't be forgotten. For example could an ex-convict be able to delete stories about their crime and arrest? I think that it holds people more accountable for their actions if their past mistakes can always be found. I think that as humans we should just learn to be more accepting to the fact that people can change and not always base them upon their past.
But does this only apply to "their actions?" Are there not other circumstances where this could be used that wouldn't be erasing a person's record? What about if a person's record is expunged by the court but can still be found online?
I think that if Congress were to implement a right to be forgotten, it should only be able to remove either incorrect/defamatory materials (so an article detailing the crime, as long as it was factually correct, couldn't be deleted) or personally identifiable information not otherwise available (ex: if someone were "dox'd" and had their address/family members/etc shared by a third party if the person had gone to lengths to keep that information private)
Yes. Such a law would require limits, caveats, and restrictions but would be an amazing tool for people who are victims of defamation, revenge porn, cyber bullying, etc. Rigorous public debate and discussion, as well as court rulings to establish precedent will help us define the limits of such a right, but a fear of discovering what those limits are should not be what holds us back from giving people that right in the first place.
Yes! While having the already discussed applications of removing defamatory content about oneself, it could also be used to protect victims of abuse. When I was younger (13 if I recall correctly), I encountered trouble with a 19/20 year old pursuing a romantic/sexual relationship with me over Skype, and he managed to track down my location and real name. My mother and I struggled for several months trying to purge the internet of any identifying information of me afterwards, and I'm honestly still afraid that we've missed something. If there was a figurative "Big Red Button" available, where maybe I could pay a fee and have all of my accounts/information about me purged (for a good reason, of course), it would have helped greatly. Granted, it would be very difficult to determine who would be eligible for such a purge. Would anyone be allowed to clear the internet of their name if they could pay for it? What is the border between information that would be removed or kept? Context would matter greatly when making these decisions, and I doubt there could be a hard line drawn in the sand on the issue.
I believe that congress should recognize a right to forget but I believe they need to strengthen It. Just pulling the link from your name in search engines is a waste of time. The article, or picture, or whatever It is being hidden, can still easily be found. So for me this all feels like a waste of time. Revenge porn for example, I want that picture completely erased. The fact that my name is pulled off of the link, following the search engine does nothing for me. It will make It a little bit harder to find and thats all. It doesn't fix the problem which is my main concern.
This isn't impossible by any means. For example, when child pornography is posted the police are able to erase It completely. That way It isnt able to be looked up again. Yes It is probably on an archive somewhere, but the general public cannot look It up and find It, which is the most important thing.
I think that a "right to be forgotten" act should exist in a very limited form. Factually incorrect information, information that normally would be private (like address, social security, credit card information, etc.), and unwanted sexually explicit content among other types of information should be eligible. Otherwise, I think that solutions such as removing access to the content through search engines without modifying the content itself is a sufficient solution.
Yes, I do think the "right to be forgotten" should exist, but with limitations similar to those implemented in Europe, where only information deemed to be "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive" could be disassociated from a person's name. I think this right gives people a reasonable amount of power to control the information that exists about them, without completely erasing or changing documented history. Finding a balance between protecting the individual and greater society may be difficult, especially in the U.S. where various privacy topics are approached differently, but allowing individuals to have power over their personal information is important as technology advances and jeopardizes privacy.
Yes, I think that "right to be forgotten" laws should be enacted in the United States. I think that such laws would help provide people with a necessary amount of control over information about them and how easily accessible that information is. However, this right to forget would not come without its problems. It would be difficult in some situations to determine whether or not the circumstances were valid and warranted the application of the law. Overall I think a system similar to Europe's that looks at whether the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive would be beneficial. People shouldn't have to worry about information about them that falls into those categories ruining potential opportunities for them.
Yes, I agree with the right to be forgotten on a theoretical level, but in application it gets very difficult to execute. For instance, Facebooks servers are located across the world. It’s very expensive to fully delete information from every server and backup drive at the same time. Not to mention the issue of latency between servers causing even greater cost. It would be more practical to have a functioning “lock” in search engines, preventing public access to information labeled as private, rather than deleting all records.
No, I believe that a "right to be forgotten" should not be recognized at this point in time. On paper, this right sounds like it would be very useful. A person would be able to take down information from the web that is embarrassing or misrepresentation to the individual. This would help stop forms of cyber bullying and revenge. However, taking the right to be forgotten at face value would lead to more problems. Without specifications, people would be able to remove whatever they want without repercussion, such as their past of illegal activity. As detailed in the "Erasing the News: Should some stories be forgotten?" article, a University paid thousands of dollars to companies in order to get people to forget a campus pepper spray incident by burying it with other results. On top of that, a "right to be forgotten" won't work with every case. As John Oliver stated, everything on the internet is here to stay. Just because a newspaper article or foreclosure notice no longer appears on search results doesn't mean it's not still on the web. A more specific "right to be forgotten" would be useful, but until we finish developing those policies, we should not recognize a "right to be forgotten."
No, if anything our readings have shown how the European Union has utilized “the right to be forgotten,” and been ineffective. These readings, in fact, have only strengthened a sense of the inability to forget, just the ability to hide. While there are advantages to forgetting as mentioned in class pertaining to cases of revenge porn; the digital age has proven— we never truly forget, only improve at hiding. Thus, why maintain the idea that we may escape our past when it’s only feasible to hide, or in this case unlink our name from the search engine? While I maintain that yes, in certain circumstance it would benefit certain individuals who have fallen victim to instances mentioned in the EU’s article such as “inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive.” Passing a congressional law to “forget” wouldn’t be as effective. Furthermore, who would be the one deciding what is considered the right to be forgotten?
Yes, I believe a limited form of the “right to be forgotten” law should be enacted in the United States. Such a law would provide a certain amount of control to people concerning their online information. I believe such a law would be beneficial at this point because, depending on the state in which you live, there are few options currently available to distance one’s self from the repercussions of damaging personal information posted online. I agree with other replies that a balance would have to be struck between protecting the individual and society, but I believe the benefits of greater autonomy over one’s information would outweigh any drawbacks.
I think that such a law should be implemented, although much closer to the law found in California rather than the one found in the EU. For instance, in California the law allows for the actual content to be deleted where as in the EU the law only requires search engines to adjust what content is displayed for key words or names. It is much more strenuous, however, to implement the California law to the extent that an individual must contact every website and ask for their content to be removed. It would be much easier if it was treated as a copy right law, in which case an individual who it is ruled has the right for certain content to be forgotten would be afforded the rights to that content. This would make websites much more compliant in removing the content of their own accord for fear of a copy rights law suit.
Although I do think that Congress should recognize a "right to be forgotten," I do think it should mirror California's law more than Europe. After reading more about the right to be forgotten, and speaking about it in class, I realized that there are a lot of disadvantages that go with it. That's why I agree with Vincent; if a law were to be nationally implemented, I think it should mirror California's law (which protects minors) rather than the EU's version. However, I'm not very optimistic that any such law will be passed by Congress in the near future, since as of right now, it's arguably still a state's issue, and appears that it will remain that way for a while.
No. I believe that enacting such a law would just create more controversy because we would then have to decide what can and can't be forgotten. For example could an ex-convict be able to delete stories about their crime and arrest? I think that it holds people more accountable for their actions if their past mistakes can always be found. I think that as humans we should just learn to be more accepting to the fact that people can change and not always base them upon their past.
ReplyDeleteBut does this only apply to "their actions?" Are there not other circumstances where this could be used that wouldn't be erasing a person's record? What about if a person's record is expunged by the court but can still be found online?
DeleteI think that if Congress were to implement a right to be forgotten, it should only be able to remove either incorrect/defamatory materials (so an article detailing the crime, as long as it was factually correct, couldn't be deleted) or personally identifiable information not otherwise available (ex: if someone were "dox'd" and had their address/family members/etc shared by a third party if the person had gone to lengths to keep that information private)
DeleteYes. Such a law would require limits, caveats, and restrictions but would be an amazing tool for people who are victims of defamation, revenge porn, cyber bullying, etc. Rigorous public debate and discussion, as well as court rulings to establish precedent will help us define the limits of such a right, but a fear of discovering what those limits are should not be what holds us back from giving people that right in the first place.
ReplyDeleteYes! While having the already discussed applications of removing defamatory content about oneself, it could also be used to protect victims of abuse. When I was younger (13 if I recall correctly), I encountered trouble with a 19/20 year old pursuing a romantic/sexual relationship with me over Skype, and he managed to track down my location and real name. My mother and I struggled for several months trying to purge the internet of any identifying information of me afterwards, and I'm honestly still afraid that we've missed something. If there was a figurative "Big Red Button" available, where maybe I could pay a fee and have all of my accounts/information about me purged (for a good reason, of course), it would have helped greatly.
ReplyDeleteGranted, it would be very difficult to determine who would be eligible for such a purge. Would anyone be allowed to clear the internet of their name if they could pay for it? What is the border between information that would be removed or kept? Context would matter greatly when making these decisions, and I doubt there could be a hard line drawn in the sand on the issue.
I believe that congress should recognize a right to forget but I believe they need to strengthen It. Just pulling the link from your name in search engines is a waste of time. The article, or picture, or whatever It is being hidden, can still easily be found. So for me this all feels like a waste of time. Revenge porn for example, I want that picture completely erased. The fact that my name is pulled off of the link, following the search engine does nothing for me. It will make It a little bit harder to find and thats all. It doesn't fix the problem which is my main concern.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't impossible by any means. For example, when child pornography is posted the police are able to erase It completely. That way It isnt able to be looked up again. Yes It is probably on an archive somewhere, but the general public cannot look It up and find It, which is the most important thing.
DeleteI think that a "right to be forgotten" act should exist in a very limited form. Factually incorrect information, information that normally would be private (like address, social security, credit card information, etc.), and unwanted sexually explicit content among other types of information should be eligible. Otherwise, I think that solutions such as removing access to the content through search engines without modifying the content itself is a sufficient solution.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think the "right to be forgotten" should exist, but with limitations similar to those implemented in Europe, where only information deemed to be "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive" could be disassociated from a person's name. I think this right gives people a reasonable amount of power to control the information that exists about them, without completely erasing or changing documented history. Finding a balance between protecting the individual and greater society may be difficult, especially in the U.S. where various privacy topics are approached differently, but allowing individuals to have power over their personal information is important as technology advances and jeopardizes privacy.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that "right to be forgotten" laws should be enacted in the United States. I think that such laws would help provide people with a necessary amount of control over information about them and how easily accessible that information is. However, this right to forget would not come without its problems. It would be difficult in some situations to determine whether or not the circumstances were valid and warranted the application of the law. Overall I think a system similar to Europe's that looks at whether the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive would be beneficial. People shouldn't have to worry about information about them that falls into those categories ruining potential opportunities for them.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the right to be forgotten on a theoretical level, but in application it gets very difficult to execute. For instance, Facebooks servers are located across the world. It’s very expensive to fully delete information from every server and backup drive at the same time. Not to mention the issue of latency between servers causing even greater cost. It would be more practical to have a functioning “lock” in search engines, preventing public access to information labeled as private, rather than deleting all records.
ReplyDeleteNo, I believe that a "right to be forgotten" should not be recognized at this point in time. On paper, this right sounds like it would be very useful. A person would be able to take down information from the web that is embarrassing or misrepresentation to the individual. This would help stop forms of cyber bullying and revenge. However, taking the right to be forgotten at face value would lead to more problems. Without specifications, people would be able to remove whatever they want without repercussion, such as their past of illegal activity. As detailed in the "Erasing the News: Should some stories be forgotten?" article, a University paid thousands of dollars to companies in order to get people to forget a campus pepper spray incident by burying it with other results. On top of that, a "right to be forgotten" won't work with every case. As John Oliver stated, everything on the internet is here to stay. Just because a newspaper article or foreclosure notice no longer appears on search results doesn't mean it's not still on the web. A more specific "right to be forgotten" would be useful, but until we finish developing those policies, we should not recognize a "right to be forgotten."
ReplyDeleteNo, if anything our readings have shown how the European Union has utilized “the right to be forgotten,” and been ineffective. These readings, in fact, have only strengthened a sense of the inability to forget, just the ability to hide. While there are advantages to forgetting as mentioned in class pertaining to cases of revenge porn; the digital age has proven— we never truly forget, only improve at hiding. Thus, why maintain the idea that we may escape our past when it’s only feasible to hide, or in this case unlink our name from the search engine? While I maintain that yes, in certain circumstance it would benefit certain individuals who have fallen victim to instances mentioned in the EU’s article such as “inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive.” Passing a congressional law to “forget” wouldn’t be as effective. Furthermore, who would be the one deciding what is considered the right to be forgotten?
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe a limited form of the “right to be forgotten” law should be enacted in the United States. Such a law would provide a certain amount of control to people concerning their online information. I believe such a law would be beneficial at this point because, depending on the state in which you live, there are few options currently available to distance one’s self from the repercussions of damaging personal information posted online. I agree with other replies that a balance would have to be struck between protecting the individual and society, but I believe the benefits of greater autonomy over one’s information would outweigh any drawbacks.
ReplyDeleteI think that such a law should be implemented, although much closer to the law found in California rather than the one found in the EU. For instance, in California the law allows for the actual content to be deleted where as in the EU the law only requires search engines to adjust what content is displayed for key words or names. It is much more strenuous, however, to implement the California law to the extent that an individual must contact every website and ask for their content to be removed. It would be much easier if it was treated as a copy right law, in which case an individual who it is ruled has the right for certain content to be forgotten would be afforded the rights to that content. This would make websites much more compliant in removing the content of their own accord for fear of a copy rights law suit.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do think that Congress should recognize a "right to be forgotten," I do think it should mirror California's law more than Europe. After reading more about the right to be forgotten, and speaking about it in class, I realized that there are a lot of disadvantages that go with it. That's why I agree with Vincent; if a law were to be nationally implemented, I think it should mirror California's law (which protects minors) rather than the EU's version. However, I'm not very optimistic that any such law will be passed by Congress in the near future, since as of right now, it's arguably still a state's issue, and appears that it will remain that way for a while.
ReplyDelete