p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px ‘Times New Roman’; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

In the digital world, where the Internet becomes a new reality, it is very difficult to keep a private life really private. The modern person leaves information traces almost every minute at the same time, information in the network not only spreads incredibly fast but can be stored for an unlimited time. The perception of a person by others, the business reputation in particular increasingly depend on materials available on the Internet. In such way, getting rid of the sometimes negatively perceived by others past is becoming increasingly difficult. With the development of the IT sphere, the idea of protecting personal data from their free distribution on the Internet has become increasingly relevant. The starting point for the international recognition of the “right to be forgotten” was the case of Mario Costeja Gonzalez vs Google (May 2014). In this case, the European Court adopted a decision that obligated Google’s search engine to remove links from the search results with the name of the victim. Already in March 2014, the European Parliament approved the Personal Data Protection Act. It secures the right of a citizen to ask a search engine to remove unreliable information about this person. Obviously, the “law to be forgotten” is intended to consolidate the trade-off between the right to privacy, the protection of personal data and the right to freedom of speech, as well as access to information.
In the United States, the “right to be forgotten” is generally seen as contradicting the US Constitution and some argue that the removal of information can be rejected based In the United States, the “right to be forgotten” is generally seen as contradicting the US Constitution and some argue that the removal of information can be rejected, based on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (First Amendment. Religion And Expression). 
According to Reding, European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, on January 22, 2012, the “right to be forgotten” is a human right to withdraw their consent to the processing of personal data, including truthful, initially legally processed information if it is found to be inadequate, irrelevant or excessive in relation to the purpose of a processing (including, in light of the past time) (Reding, 2012). It is noteworthy that in the final version of the draft act on the protection of personal data speaks not only about protection of materials published by the users themselves, but also any information pertaining to the applicant, regardless of the source. In addition, in the latest version of the draft law, the “right to be forgotten” has been given a different name “right to erasure” and a slightly different definition. The individuals have the right to require the data operator (a physical or legal person who independently determines the objectives and means of processing data) the removal of their personal data, including any links and copies distributed by third parties. Usually, it is a question of removing links in the search engines for materials containing information that is undesirable for the applicant, but not the materials themselves (European Commission, Factsheet on the «Right to Be Forgotten» ruling (C-131/12)). As the EU Court notes, the “right to be forgotten” is not absolute. A data storage should be allowed if it is necessary for historical, statistical, and research purposes, for public interest in health, for the right to freedom of expression when it is required by the law or if there is a reason to limit the processing of data, and not to erase them. 
Carefully approaching the issue of finding a balance between private and public interests, the Court proposes to substantiate the decisions on the nature of the information, its sensitivity to the applicant’s private life and the interest of society towards it (that in turn may depend on the role of the complainant in public life). The difficulty lies in the fact that even if at the moment the information does not represent a significant interest to anyone, in the future the situation may change that the destroyed data would play a key role in making an important decision. Therefore, the realization of the “right to be forgotten” often comes down to limiting accessibility, that is a slowing the dissemination of information.
A member of the Google Advisory Council and Professor of Philosophy and Ethics at Oxford University, Luciano Floridi, highlights the main problems associated with the realization of the “right to be forgotten”. He points that it is very difficult to determine the relevance, relevance of the data without referring to the context of the information itself and the goal for which it is sought (Floridi, 2014). Moreover, both these variables easily change under the influence of time and circumstances.
Even if it is possible to formulate some universal principles on which the relevance of information will be determined, who will decide what should remain in memory and what should be forgotten? According to the draft law on the protection of personal data, approved by the European Parliament on March 12, 2014, the operator is obligated to take all necessary measures to remove information and notify third parties about the user’s request for data deletion. Taking into account the subjective nature of the requirements for information to be deleted, any institution will face challenges in providing leadership over the private sector and monitoring compliance (Daniels, 2014).
The difficulty in deciding whether to satisfy or dissatisfy the user’s request together with large monetary penalties may lead that companies in ambiguous cases will rather delete data than save. The extremely wide definition of personal information as any information relating to, regardless of its source, gives neutral web platforms serious opportunities to limit freedom of speech. So, Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, fears that such regulation can make, for example, Google as a censor-in-chief on the territory of the European Union (Rosen, 2012). Despite the fact that the global approach seems more consistent in terms of a regulatory unity, its implementation is unlikely, as countries are unlikely to agree to this. In addition, critics of the global approach point out its danger. Illiberal, unable to protect freedom of speech, countries would be able to edit the search engines on a global scale. The national approach, from the point of view of Luciano Floridi, is more preferable. Removing links from only the national search engine (as was done in the case of Mario Costej Gonzales) copes with the solution of the problem thanks to the power of default. In spite of the fact that users can easily bypass the limitations of google.es and take advantage of google.com, according to Google, very few people actually do it. If the aim of the European Union is to slow down the availability and dissemination of information with which a person wants to stop being connected then it seems to have been achieved.


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Click here