| | |
|
CarlaDULACFirstEssay 6 - 22 Jan 2020 - Main.CarlaDULAC
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | |
If we were to ask quite wealthy people from our generation if they own a smartphone, use the internet on a daily basis or have social media accounts, their answer would be yes without any hesitation. | |
<
< | But what they and I haven't realised when using those technologies, is that we share our personal information either intentionally or unintentionally with private or public entities worldwide, that tend to violate our right to privacy by selling information without our consent to companies we haven't even heard about. Personal data are any anonymous data that can be double checked to identify a specific individual. | >
> | But what they and I haven't realized when using those technologies, is that we share our personal information either intentionally or unintentionally with private or public entities worldwide, that tend to violate our right to privacy by selling information without our consent to companies we haven't even heard about. Personal data are any anonymous data that can be double-checked to identify a specific individual. | | |
Those data are precious for companies because they reveal our preferences, our likes that can be sold to other companies to increase their sell. | | | GDPR can be used to erase online content, whether or not that content actually violates anyone else's rights. Such a use could constitute a violation of freedom of information with is part of the fundamental right of freedom of expression.Those rights are recognised in international law, as in the article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. It is true that there are some very important concerns about data protection and privacy in face of mass collection of our data by companies, but the way "right to be forgotten" is built is not appropriate. In fact freedom of expression for the public interest is essential, even for information obtained unlawfully. | |
<
< | In my opinion, the right to be forgotten as designed by the GDPR is in total opposition with the freedom of expression. The right to ask search engines to de-index web pages, as well as the right of erasure, is encompassed in this legislation. What I think is problematic is that under article 17, it’s data controllers (usually search engines) which are the initial adjudicators of requests. This is problematic because search engines do not own the content that the individual is asking to have removed. Editorial decisions must rest with publishers — not tech companies. Otherwise, it can evolve into a form of censorship, since as individuals we don’t have control over what is removed. Furthermore, it is on our behalf, that states have a right to censor indexes, using deindexing orders. Once again it questions about censorship: states impose us a duty to forget those indexes. We can’t say anything. Why can’t we deal with our information the way we want? Why do we need a third part to be involved? | >
> | In my opinion, the right to be forgotten as designed by the GDPR is in total opposition with the freedom of expression. The right to ask search engines to de-index web pages, as well as the right of erasure, is encompassed in this legislation. What I think is problematic is that under article 17, it's data controllers (usually search engines) which are the initial adjudicators of requests. This is problematic because search engines do not own the content that the individual is asking to have removed. Editorial decisions must rest with publishers; not tech companies. A site does not have to be indexed (the process of downloading a site or a page's content to the server of the search engine, thereby adding it to its index), to be listed (showing a site in the search result pages). If the indexer decides to de-index a page, it does not remove the source content from the internet: It only mean the underlying website will not be listed in the search results. As a result, de indexing can be compared to a right to obscurity or a right to oblivion.
Furthermore, it is on our behalf that states have a right to censor indexes, using deindexing orders. Once again it questions about censorship: states impose us a duty to forget those indexes. We can’t say anything. Why can’t we deal with our information the way we want? Why do we need a third part to be involved? | | | | |
<
< | What should be done in order to change that? EU law isn’t providing ways to effectively protect privacy and individuals often part with their information without knowing that they have surrendered some privacy. | >
> | What should be done in order to change that? EU law isn't providing ways to effectively protect privacy and individuals often part with their information without knowing that they have surrendered some privacy. | | | The answer to the problem is maybe to forbid the right to be forgotten, since it does more harm than good. From a physiological or neurological point of view, no one can be forced to forget. Privacy is a very important right that must be protected, but there are limits. If you did something, you did it. If something was published, it cannot be unpublished.
Another argument is to know where does the right to be forgotten fit into a world that functions through blockchain which is designed precisely to record everything permanently? | | | | |
<
< |
I'm not sure I understand this analysis. Does anyone have a right to be indexed? If the indexer makes the decision to de-index a page, how is that actionable? In which case, it is difficult to see how the free expression interest at stake is the interest of any individual speaker; the right of expression trenched upon is in all cases the indexer, is it not?
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |