What if the woman who started the catastrophic Hayman fire could remove her name from all online accounts of the incident? What if local newspaper stories of fraud, business disputes, drunken accidents, and domestic violence could be erased from a Google search by petition of the guilty party in asserting his “right to be forgotten?”
Sound far-fetched? It’s happening right now.
Recently, Google removed 1 million links from its European search engines to comply with a European Court of Justice ruling that allows individuals to petition websites to remove online content deemed “inadequate or irrelevant.” Now, French bureaucrats are demanding Google apply the “right to be forgotten” to all its search engines, including , which is used in the United States. Google is appealing the decision.
Meanwhile, California has passed a law that creates a limited version of this right to minors, allowing them to remove information they posted. While a far cry from the EU’s nearly absolute appeal, more may be on the way. IT security consultant found that 39 percent of Americans want an EU-style “right to be forgotten” without restrictions, while another 61 percent want some version of a law.
While privacy is a vital right, it should not be conflated with restricting public information. The right to be forgotten should not eclipse the right to know.
Over half of EU requests to restrict data are related to past criminal activity. For example, convicted murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, sued several media outlets and Wikipedia to remove their names from public records associated with the crime. The ability to hide one’s past should never be enshrined as a right. If anything, it is the public’s right to know if someone has committed a crime.
The right to be forgotten also impinges on others’ rights to be known. In 1978, a tanker truck exploded near a Spanish campground, instantly incinerating more than 200 campers. The current-day owners, understandably concerned over the story’s effect on business, sued Google in order to have disaster-related results removed permanently from search engine results.
However, the owners can lay no more claim to the information than anyone else who has ties to the incident. Who precisely holds the rights to publicized information?
Even with exceptions, the “right to be forgotten” is a denial of responsibility, far-reaching and enforceable by law. We should never grant the protected status of private dealings upon that which has been willingly made public, that which concerns the public, or that which is about the public. Under such a law, your opinions of this column could be censored, or all critique of a political candidate banished from the Web.
Google should not give in to demands by European regulators to censor its search engine results, and U.S. lawmakers, courts and agencies should avoid making the same mistake of enshrining the dubious “right to be forgotten” in U.S. law.
Krista Kafer (tokrista@msn. com) is co-host of “Kelley and Company” from 1 to 4 p.m on 710 KNUS. This column was co-written with Colorado Christian University student Cole Brown.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
