NY Times Warns About Europe Expanding The 'Right To Be Forgotten'
from the good-for-them dept
We recently warned about how the new Data Protection Directive in the EU, while written with good intentions, unfortunately appears to both lock-in and expand the whole right to be forgotten idea in potentially dangerous ways. A big part of it is that the directive is just too vague, meaning that the RTBF may apply to all kinds of internet services, but we won't know for certain until the lawsuits are all finally decided many years in the future. Also unclear are what sorts of safe harbors there may be and how the directive protects against abusing the right to be forgotten for out and out censorship. Unfortunately, many are simply celebrating these new rules for the fact that they do give end users some more power over their data and how it's used.But ignoring how these new rules will almost certainly be abused for censorship and to hold internet providers liable for the speech of others is a mistake. Thankfully, the NY Times has a good editorial warning about this very issue:
The editorial also notes that the proposed rules don't make it clear whether the EU expects these rules to apply globally or just in the EU, and that could make a huge difference. As we've noted France and Google are currently fighting this fight right now. And the new rules don't provide any further clarity, which likely means people will push to use them as a sort of global censorship tool.The most problematic measure would expand what is known as the right to be forgotten, which lets people request that businesses delete personal information that they believe is no longer relevant or is out of date.
It is reasonable to allow people to delete some information, like embarrassing photographs they posted on Facebook. But this right has been used to make it harder to find legitimate information, like old news articles. More than 350,000 Europeans have asked Google to remove links to 1.3 million web pages from search results since the European Court of Justice ruled in May 2014 that people have a right to request such deletions. (The company says it has complied with 42 percent of the requests it has received. People can appeal Google’s decision to privacy regulators and courts.)
The proposed law requires Internet companies like Google to immediately take down information while they decide whether a request for a permanent deletion is warranted. Disturbingly, news organizations and other websites would not have an opportunity to object to those immediate removals and might not even have a chance to protest permanent deletions.
The end result is the removal of truthful information from the internet, as well as fewer incentives for companies to create useful platforms for free speech. Yes, we know that the standard line is that Europeans value privacy more than free speech, but that's both too simplistic a response and doesn't even address the real issue. This new directive is going to be a tool that is abused to silence free speech and punish innovation. That's not about protecting privacy at all. It's about out and out censorship.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: data protection, data protection directive, eu, europe, free speech, gdpr, privacy, right to be forgotten
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's worse than it looks
What stops articles about Tiananmen Square or the Holocaust from being removed in the name of the "Right To Be Forgotten"?
When we manage to do that (forget history), it's certain that we will repeat it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's worse than it looks
Go to China and research that. I bet you get educated real quick :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's worse than it looks
This story is about China getting the right to come here and get you. You got problems with your gov't (or anyone)? Now, you've got problems with all of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's worse than it looks
Heh, we already do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Europe values privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gives the expression jackass new credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, wasn't Orwell a European? Oh, yeah, English, guess that's different.
So, no we practically have a memory hole.
This whole firewalling of the internet by countries and regions is going to lead to bad consequences.
On the one hand, these states are all lining up to sign free trade agreements.
But, they want to control where information goes and can be stored in the name of privacy?
There goes the one world state ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let them do it
I don't think it'll take very long until the US and Europe are buried under requests from China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran to take down "imperialistic and capitalist" sites.
Here's a quick hypothetical: suppose the bin Laden family doesn't want their business tarnished by Osama bin Laden and they file Right to be Forgotten notices. How soon until the entire history of 9/11, Seal Team Six, and "Zero Dark Thirty" are erased. Do the bin Ladens even have the political power to "forget" an Academy Award-winning Hollywood movie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let them do it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this only apply to electronic data?
Will we need to search for, and burn, any books that someone may not agree with?
Oh yes, bookburning, where have I seen that before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this only apply to electronic data?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I committing some offense by speaking of things others would rather forget? If so, what are the consequences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it's vague, then it is unjust. Any legal system that would fail to throw out an obviously vague law is itself invalid.
Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
outside Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outside Europe
About like that. Government will claim that because the company has a presence in the 'home' country that means that all branches are subject to the same orders/rulings/laws, because after all, they're all part of the same company, and if the company wants to continue to to business in that country, then they'll have to comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: outside Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outside Europe
And, force search engines (everywhere) to stop offering a link to it in searches. Australia appears to agree, as does Hollywierd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suddenly there is no such law (Google can Google to prove it)..hey presto! no more censorship/takedowns.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]