Right To Be Forgottened

We’re heading toward a world where an extensive trail of information fragments about us will be forever preserved on the Internet, displayed instantly in a Google search. We will be forced to live with a detailed record beginning with childhood that will stay with us for life wherever we go, searchable and accessible from anywhere in the world.

These words of the American legal scholar Daniel J. Solove seems to be true as the twenty-first century is progressing and the global society is becoming increasingly digitized. We are in an information age. According to the Internet World Stats, as of December 31, 2017, over 4.15 billion people are now connected to the Internet. Out of the 7.6 billion people who populate this earth, more than half

“right to be forgotten.” The concept is known by various equivalent terms like “right to forget,” “right to oblivion,” and “right to delete” all describing, generally, “the right for natural persons to have information about them deleted after a certain period of time” although right to be forgotten as a concept is not much explored but still we can find the traces of this right in one form of the other in various legislations and legal documents. Right to be forgotten can be defined “as a right of individuals to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.” It is an emerging legal concept which allows individuals to control their online identities by demanding that Internet search engines remove certain

Reporters Committee for a Free Press . The matter before the US Supreme Court was about the FBI rap sheet of a man called Charles Medico which was sought by some reporters as they alleged secret ties of his family with a syndicate to commit an organised crime. The court held that that the rap sheets weren't a subject to disclosure under a Freedom of Information request. It allowed the request which was made by the individual for withdrawal of certain information which could harm him in actions that he has done in the past. Although there was an availability of such records in court and government offices, the efforts needed to retrieve them was cumbersome and demanding that it was considered to be impracticable. Therefore it was held that such disclosure could constitute unwarranted invasion of privacy of an