The "Right to be Forgotten" can be defined as an individual's legal right to submit an inquiry to have any material be removed from the Internet. The information does, however, need to meet the requirements of violating personal privacy and/or no longer being applicable to them. This definition came to judgment and public view in the global case where the technological company Google Inc. had been sued by a citizen, who had argued that the search engine was responsible for not removing or concealing his personal data that had no longer be relevant.
In May 2014, Spanish lawyer Mario Costeja Gonzalez had taken Google Spain and, the parent company, Google Inc. to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for the reason that, ""out-of-date and potentially
…show more content…
This then stemmed into potential issues for Google, its stakeholders, and other search engines being that now they are now legally "controllers of personal data" (Commission). Stakeholders such as search engines, individual citizens, public and private businesses, and much more. By looking at a couple of these varying stakeholders we can see how each has the potential to greatly benefit or hinder from the ruling. Search engines will experience the greatest issue due to amount and liability of requests received for information to be removed. Individual citizens will benefit from the opportunity of having image damaging and irrelevant information located under their name removed. Private and public businesses may gain from this by escaping incriminating articles that attempt to slander a company with false …show more content…
This entails that for any public citizens living in the EU that pursue to have information taken down, that the link could potentially be taken down. With the catch, however, that it can only be taken down from their locational website. Google itself, had been divided into different url's dependent on the region you are in. In the United States, it is commonly known as www.google.com. In regions such as the United Kingdom, it's known as www.google.uk. Following the case, America has begun taking requests from the public to be forgotten. Looking at the chart below, you can see that even though these requests have been accepted, it is up to google to approve or decline that the information is
Advancements in technology have strived to make life easier for so many people. In most cases, the advancements have achieved its goal, but in the article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” Nicholas Carr questions if the improvements in society have unintentionally hindered our thought process overall. Carr begins the article by providing personal instances when his concentration seemed to diminish due to the internet. He explains how he now loses interest when reading lengthy portions, his mind just can’t seem to remain connected to his readings. He then proceeds to talk about how today’s life is surrounded by the internet, and explains the pros and cons of it. The negative side of it is that his mind now wonders off when seeking information from
In “Google never forgets: a caution tale,” Max Fawcett (2006) has cautioned readers to be careful of what you publish on the Internet. In the first part of this essay, he mentioned about the internet makes the digital equivalent of a dishonest diary to record your life knowledge, your opinions, and your shameful stories. It is catastrophic when you can not control over the biography’s content. Also, Google can keep everything that you posted many years ago, and they are coming behind of you same as a shadow. In the second part, he tried to explain to us that some of the information in the Internet are fake, unclear and outdated. The author used from Napa Valley as an example that “superior code is also ruthlessly efficient at finding every reference, however obscure, tangential or dated it might be, when an individual’s name is searched.” The author also stated that he made a website in 1998 and after a while and specifically in 2004 he came to search for himself and he discovered that Google still has this information kept in its memory. He also tried to clarify that Google can be a reason for an employee’s termination or job refusing when his/her boss or interviewer search about their background and find some negative feedbacks on their weblog.
Does our daily use of technology and tools pose a threat to how effectively our memory functions?
To begin with, Harry Lewis, Randal Picker, and Siva Vaidhyanathan argue that the violation of the Google motto is demonstrated in their agreement to cooperate with the Chinese government in exchange of a larger monetary market (Intelligence2, 2008). They discuss that the Chinese government has allowed Google to enter their country with the condition that they censor much of the material on the Internet. Google, being an American company should have said no and upheld the first amendment of the United States Constitution. This is a reason that has led many people to classify Google as...
Privacy does not have a single definition and it is a concept that is not easily defined. Information privacy is an individual's claim to control the terms under which personal information is acquired, disclosed, and used [9]. In the context of privacy, personal information includes any information relating to or traceable to an individual person [ 1]. Privacy can be defined as a fundamental human right; thus, privacy protection which involves the establishment of rules governing the collection and handling of personal data can be seen as a boundary line as how far society can intrude into a person's affairs.
As we may all know our right to privacy is a human right and an element of various legal traditions which may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy an individual’s background. These two men named Warren and Brandeis wrote that privacy is the “right to be let alone”, and focused on protecting individuals. The right to privacy is out own right to keep a domain around us, including things around us such as our own body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets, and our identity. We have our right to choose who we let to access our parts also as to contro...
The right to privacy and the right to be forgotten are both what most people think of has a something that they must have like the right of freedom or the right to bears arms. However, that done not apply to everyone like criminals, politicians and everyday people who all post things on the internet or someone during for them. I think that the right to be forgotten is not for those kind of people.
Today, because privacy is a emerging right, a discussion of privacy is usually consists of a list of examples where the right has been recognized. Privacy can be talked about in the nature of the right and the source of the right. There are four rights in the USA, unreasonable intrusion such as physical invasion, appropriation of a persons name or likenesss, publication of private facts such as income tax data or sexual relations, and publication that places a person in a false light, and the only one that is widely accepted in the US is the second one. A person might also recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress, assa...
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Google is the largest search engine across the globe, which has significantly transformed the use of the Internet as an information source. The influence of Google in Internet use as information source is evident in the fact that by June 2010, it accounted for more than 70 percent of total Internet searches in America. In addition to its success and profitability in the global market, Google is renowned as a highly ethical company as demonstrated in its corporate philosophy features. However, the firm’s behavior during the launch of its China-based search engine in 2006 generated huge skepticism from the United States government and several human rights organizations (Baker & Tang, p.2). Since the launch of Google’s Chinese search engine, the company complied with China’s censorship regulations by deciding to filter out terms that are considered politically sensitive. This decision attracted criticism from political leaders and human rights activists who accused Google of betraying its adopted ethical standards by ignoring the essence of freedom of expression and information access. As a result, Google faced a dilemma involving the clash between law and ethics. In the subsequent years, Google reacted to the dilemma by changing its rhetoric strategies in efforts to respond to the changing needs.
Political, economic, and technological are three factors of the external environment that Google must identify with doing an external analysis. Political factor can profit Googles growth through different markets. Chinese’s and US government placed an obstacle for any growth that Google had in these markets. According to Google 2009, “They viewed Google as a monopoly and request authority to monitor its activities. The pressure of the government provides additional problems with copyright and privacy issues. As the technology expands, it offers more problems for Google. “New...
Interests: The image of Google in the media and among investors will be seriously damaged if it act antithetically to its philosophy of “Don’t’ be evil” It might affect negatively to the future prosperity of the company.
This report will describe the history of government regulations and FTC. How that applied to Google search and personal privacy. The changes made from the settlement between Google and the FTC, the difference Google's practices and policies from before the settlement and after the settlement, and the current demands and expectations from current and vocal Google users. The report will also draw a conclusion from the findings and will determine if additional regulations are needed or if the regulations currently in place are sufficient.
Levy, Steven, Brad Stone, and Peter Suciu. "All Eyes On Google. (Cover Story)." Newsweek 143.13 (2004):
...services and Google should strive to remain ethical and committed to the privacy agreements made between the company and the users