Information and information technologies have become an essential part of everyday life for millions of people. Since the dawn of the computer age however, people have been worried about privacy. In the book Digital Information and the Privacy Problem the author states “We have seen that the storage of digital information confers a great many advantages, but, balanced against this, there has been a growing fear in recent years that the increasing use of computers for storing and processing information will lead to unacceptable invasions of privacy.” (Niblett, 16) This was written all the way back in 1960 when computers were just becoming a realistic option for businesses outside the government, which really goes to show how long this issue of privacy has been a public topic. Recently in Europe, and in the United States there have been campaigns to protect the right to privacy, even going to the point of suggesting that the people have not only a right to privacy, but a “right to be forgotten.” People want to be sure that their information is private, theirs and theirs alone, however, this may become problematic when it is weighed against the people’s freedom of information. The people’s right to information and freedom of expression must outweigh the individual’s right to privacy or “right to be forgotten” as the right to be forgotten has not yet been established and will require some very complex lawmaking, the freedoms of information and expression are both fundamental and essential to the United States, and the rights to privacy and right to be forgotten on the internet would be difficult if not impossible to carry out.
The rights to privacy, more specifically the right to be forgotten, has very little legal precedent in the U.S., it will therefore be a complex right to legislate. Those for the right to privacy and right to be forgotten may say that the U.S. has a longstanding precedent regarding privacy, such as is seen in medical records or lawyer client confidentiality, however, internet privacy and data privacy protection is a very different issue, Patricia Hewitt addressed this in her book Computers Records and the Right to Privacy saying “The function of a data protection law should be different than a law on privacy. Rather than establishing rights, it should focus on finding the balance of interests of the individual, the data users, and the community at large.” (Hewitt, 5). This shows how complicated creating laws on internet privacy and data privacy protection may be. Those who are for the right to be forgotten are interested in establishing rights on the internet, which is a complicated issue for many reasons. That aside, in creating the right to be forgotten, other problems, namely an abuse of that right, or the possibility of its infringement upon the rights of free expression and information. The issue of finding a balance is complicated when the people don’t know the value of what they may be infringing upon, Fredrick Williams et al brought this up saying “But even more troubling, and potentially more damaging, is the lack of appreciation society seems to show for its legal right to free expression.” (Williams et al, 153) If the people of America do not show an appreciation for their right to free expression, they may easily, and are even more likely than not, to infringe upon those rights in order to protect a right that is a protection, or even a convenience for an individual, over the rights of the people as a whole. Legal issues will certainly come up regarding these rights and their interactions with other rights “Legal questions over libel, copyright, First amendment, privacy, reuse and others will arise. These issues will most likely be handled, as in the past, on a case by case basis. This legal process will be messy.” (Williams et al, 153) These legal issues will take up the time of the courts, and will likely clog the system as so many people would readily be worried about their privacy, or how others are infringing upon it by doing one thing or another. After laws are passed, the courts may interpret them in any number of ways, and, because not every investigator, nor every attorney nor every judge can be an expert in the field of computer information, or technology, they may make decisions that are more destructive of the rights, than they are protective.
The rights that this new right to be forgotten are being weighed against are freedom of expression and freedom of information, and these rights are essential to the people for many reasons. “If the fundamental Freedom and personal privacy that are the foundation of a free society are to be protected it is essential that citizens become informed and actively participate….” (Warren et al, 2) If the right to privacy or the right to be forgotten at all infringes upon the people’s right to information and free expression, then it will be detrimental to society because it will allow the people less information, and thereby less power to actively participate in forming law, electing officials, and expressing the needs of the public. People need information, they need to be able to access it freely and easily, or they will be unable to protect their freedoms, their rights and liberties. Without information, the people cannot make society function the way it should. Williams et al go on to describe America as “a country build on Freedom of Expression, public access and participation.” (Williams et al, 153) As a democratic society it is the people of America who make the laws, who make society function the way they want it to, if they can’t access information, then all of it fails. Either the people stop knowing what they’re voting for, and run the country poorly, or defer power to the federal government. While deferring power to the federal government isn’t inherently bad, there could easily be problems with it, this has been a problem in the past “There was a pervasive belief that we can’t trust anybody—not the state, not a company—to keep to its own role and protect the rights of the individual.” (Mayer-Schönberger qtd, Toobin) The problem with giving power to the government while the people remain uninformed lies in the fact that the people don’t trust the government to do its most fundamental duty of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. Moreover if the people remain uninformed while the government holds all of the power they will not even understand the full breadth of what the government does. The government could slowly enact laws to chip away at the rights of the people behind closed doors, and claim that they have a certain right to privacy in creating law, or how they vote on creating those laws, thus hiding them and their actions from the people.
The issue with any law, or right or set of rules on the internet is that it is very difficult to process or enforce anything, and ”It is not much use having security laws unless they can be and are effective in the actual lives of the individuals in society.” (Barron et al, 22) The laws and rights that are being suggested would be based on what people do on the internet, what they can find on the internet, what they can put up on the internet, but enforcing the laws through the internet would be almost impossible. In addition, the protection of the rights of the people could be compromised, and if not compromised, they would be almost impossible to work around, for example “How can someone accused of a computer crime “enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial… In the state and district… committed” when there are less than 100 investigators and perhaps a dozen prosecutors nationwide who are technically competent … where is the crime committed when state and national borders are crossed at the touch of a key?” (Warren, 1) If someone commit’s an internet crime it’s almost impossible to know where they are when they commit it, is it where the person was when they typed something in? Is it where the owner of the website lives? Is it based on where the person who was offended read it? Any of these could potentially be said to be where the crime was committed. Furthermore, if any one of those were decided on, through the use of a proxy server, a person could appear to be anywhere in the world, or have any identity, making prosecution practically impossible. In 1979 a similar problem was discussed, although they didn’t have the internet as it is known today, they did have the phone lines, and data protection over the phone was discussed, although they were talking about the phones rather than the internet it is still quite true that “There is a lot of data whizzing around the networks. Where is it all going? Where is it all coming from? What are people doing with it? We do not really know” (Hewitt, 5) It’s hard to track data, if there were an infringement on someone’s right to be forgotten, or right to privacy, they may never know about it, making a law regarding it meaningless. It has been suggested that people should be able to have information hidden or taken down if it is no longer relevant to society, or if it is outdated, but this on its own is fairly vague, and hard to pin down. “How do we distinguish between information which is socially useful, and therefor protected, versus information that is less useful to society?” (Blethen qtd, Williams et al, 154) If there is no way to know what people are doing with data, and therefore no way to know which data is socially relevant then hiding any of it, or getting rid of any of it could easily be, and likely would be and infringement on the freedoms of expression and information. Since it is unknown what information is being used to what ends, all of it has to be protected, otherwise none of it is.
Ultimately the problem of privacy or the right to be forgotten comes down to a balance of principles. It must be weighed against the rights of American people that already exist, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of information. The rights of freedom of information and freedom of expression must outweigh the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten as creating a law instituting the right to be forgotten would be a complex matter of little benefit to the people, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information, the most fundamental and most wholesome rights of the American people, would be infringed upon, and enforcing the laws regarding the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten would be very nearly impossible with modern technology.
Works Cited
Jim Warren et al. “The first Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy.” IEEE Computer Society. Los Alamitos, CA, USA. 1990. Print.
Patricia Hewitt. “Computers, Records and the Right to Privacy”. Input Two Nine LTD. Purley, UK. 1979. Print.
D.W. Barron et al. “Privacy.” John Wiley and Sons LTD. Chinchester. 1978. Print.
Fredrick Williams et al. “The People’s Right to Know.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New Jersey. 1994. Print.
GBF Niblett. “Digital Information and the Privacy Problem.” OECD Publications. Paris France. 1960. Print.
Jeffrey Toobin. “The Solace of Oblivion.” The New Yorker. September 29 2014. Nov. 20 2014. Web. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion
The rights to privacy, more specifically the right to be forgotten, has very little legal precedent in the U.S., it will therefore be a complex right to legislate. Those for the right to privacy and right to be forgotten may say that the U.S. has a longstanding precedent regarding privacy, such as is seen in medical records or lawyer client confidentiality, however, internet privacy and data privacy protection is a very different issue, Patricia Hewitt addressed this in her book Computers Records and the Right to Privacy saying “The function of a data protection law should be different than a law on privacy. Rather than establishing rights, it should focus on finding the balance of interests of the individual, the data users, and the community at large.” (Hewitt, 5). This shows how complicated creating laws on internet privacy and data privacy protection may be. Those who are for the right to be forgotten are interested in establishing rights on the internet, which is a complicated issue for many reasons. That aside, in creating the right to be forgotten, other problems, namely an abuse of that right, or the possibility of its infringement upon the rights of free expression and information. The issue of finding a balance is complicated when the people don’t know the value of what they may be infringing upon, Fredrick Williams et al brought this up saying “But even more troubling, and potentially more damaging, is the lack of appreciation society seems to show for its legal right to free expression.” (Williams et al, 153) If the people of America do not show an appreciation for their right to free expression, they may easily, and are even more likely than not, to infringe upon those rights in order to protect a right that is a protection, or even a convenience for an individual, over the rights of the people as a whole. Legal issues will certainly come up regarding these rights and their interactions with other rights “Legal questions over libel, copyright, First amendment, privacy, reuse and others will arise. These issues will most likely be handled, as in the past, on a case by case basis. This legal process will be messy.” (Williams et al, 153) These legal issues will take up the time of the courts, and will likely clog the system as so many people would readily be worried about their privacy, or how others are infringing upon it by doing one thing or another. After laws are passed, the courts may interpret them in any number of ways, and, because not every investigator, nor every attorney nor every judge can be an expert in the field of computer information, or technology, they may make decisions that are more destructive of the rights, than they are protective.
The rights that this new right to be forgotten are being weighed against are freedom of expression and freedom of information, and these rights are essential to the people for many reasons. “If the fundamental Freedom and personal privacy that are the foundation of a free society are to be protected it is essential that citizens become informed and actively participate….” (Warren et al, 2) If the right to privacy or the right to be forgotten at all infringes upon the people’s right to information and free expression, then it will be detrimental to society because it will allow the people less information, and thereby less power to actively participate in forming law, electing officials, and expressing the needs of the public. People need information, they need to be able to access it freely and easily, or they will be unable to protect their freedoms, their rights and liberties. Without information, the people cannot make society function the way it should. Williams et al go on to describe America as “a country build on Freedom of Expression, public access and participation.” (Williams et al, 153) As a democratic society it is the people of America who make the laws, who make society function the way they want it to, if they can’t access information, then all of it fails. Either the people stop knowing what they’re voting for, and run the country poorly, or defer power to the federal government. While deferring power to the federal government isn’t inherently bad, there could easily be problems with it, this has been a problem in the past “There was a pervasive belief that we can’t trust anybody—not the state, not a company—to keep to its own role and protect the rights of the individual.” (Mayer-Schönberger qtd, Toobin) The problem with giving power to the government while the people remain uninformed lies in the fact that the people don’t trust the government to do its most fundamental duty of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. Moreover if the people remain uninformed while the government holds all of the power they will not even understand the full breadth of what the government does. The government could slowly enact laws to chip away at the rights of the people behind closed doors, and claim that they have a certain right to privacy in creating law, or how they vote on creating those laws, thus hiding them and their actions from the people.
The issue with any law, or right or set of rules on the internet is that it is very difficult to process or enforce anything, and ”It is not much use having security laws unless they can be and are effective in the actual lives of the individuals in society.” (Barron et al, 22) The laws and rights that are being suggested would be based on what people do on the internet, what they can find on the internet, what they can put up on the internet, but enforcing the laws through the internet would be almost impossible. In addition, the protection of the rights of the people could be compromised, and if not compromised, they would be almost impossible to work around, for example “How can someone accused of a computer crime “enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial… In the state and district… committed” when there are less than 100 investigators and perhaps a dozen prosecutors nationwide who are technically competent … where is the crime committed when state and national borders are crossed at the touch of a key?” (Warren, 1) If someone commit’s an internet crime it’s almost impossible to know where they are when they commit it, is it where the person was when they typed something in? Is it where the owner of the website lives? Is it based on where the person who was offended read it? Any of these could potentially be said to be where the crime was committed. Furthermore, if any one of those were decided on, through the use of a proxy server, a person could appear to be anywhere in the world, or have any identity, making prosecution practically impossible. In 1979 a similar problem was discussed, although they didn’t have the internet as it is known today, they did have the phone lines, and data protection over the phone was discussed, although they were talking about the phones rather than the internet it is still quite true that “There is a lot of data whizzing around the networks. Where is it all going? Where is it all coming from? What are people doing with it? We do not really know” (Hewitt, 5) It’s hard to track data, if there were an infringement on someone’s right to be forgotten, or right to privacy, they may never know about it, making a law regarding it meaningless. It has been suggested that people should be able to have information hidden or taken down if it is no longer relevant to society, or if it is outdated, but this on its own is fairly vague, and hard to pin down. “How do we distinguish between information which is socially useful, and therefor protected, versus information that is less useful to society?” (Blethen qtd, Williams et al, 154) If there is no way to know what people are doing with data, and therefore no way to know which data is socially relevant then hiding any of it, or getting rid of any of it could easily be, and likely would be and infringement on the freedoms of expression and information. Since it is unknown what information is being used to what ends, all of it has to be protected, otherwise none of it is.
Ultimately the problem of privacy or the right to be forgotten comes down to a balance of principles. It must be weighed against the rights of American people that already exist, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of information. The rights of freedom of information and freedom of expression must outweigh the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten as creating a law instituting the right to be forgotten would be a complex matter of little benefit to the people, the right to freedom of expression and freedom of information, the most fundamental and most wholesome rights of the American people, would be infringed upon, and enforcing the laws regarding the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten would be very nearly impossible with modern technology.
Works Cited
Jim Warren et al. “The first Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy.” IEEE Computer Society. Los Alamitos, CA, USA. 1990. Print.
Patricia Hewitt. “Computers, Records and the Right to Privacy”. Input Two Nine LTD. Purley, UK. 1979. Print.
D.W. Barron et al. “Privacy.” John Wiley and Sons LTD. Chinchester. 1978. Print.
Fredrick Williams et al. “The People’s Right to Know.” Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New Jersey. 1994. Print.
GBF Niblett. “Digital Information and the Privacy Problem.” OECD Publications. Paris France. 1960. Print.
Jeffrey Toobin. “The Solace of Oblivion.” The New Yorker. September 29 2014. Nov. 20 2014. Web. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion