Regulating Internet Privacy
I sympathize with the plight of Henri because he shouldered false accusation made against him for sexual harassment and even when he protested to be innocent, nobody would believe him. Henri has a business as he is a shopkeeper and café owner, meaning his business diminished. It is logic that the number of clients reduced in his businesses because of the rumors circulating the internet (Peppet, 2014). Moreover, Henri is a family man, and this information would negatively affect his family.
I agree that the right to be forgotten is an aspect of one’s overall right to personal privacy. It is true that out of sight out of mind, and thus if Google would have stepped in to delete the links, then Henri’s story would have been forgotten. It is impossible for Henri to incriminate information about his past from the internet. Google should respond to people’s calls such as Henri and disable links to such stories. The right to be forgotten will improve the privacy of a person (Peppet, 2014). The internet is always a very busy place, so every day new stories or scandals are mushrooming. Therefore, with new stories and the link removed from the internet, a person can be forgotten from the internet and achieve privacy. Henri did not have privacy due to his story, and the more he communicated to Google, they were not interested in helping him. Google should be aware that the community is watching and the information in it affects how people behave or relate with each other.
Favor of privacy vs Free speech
The European Union had recalibrated the balance between privacy and free speech too heavily in favor of privacy when they issued a surprising court order against Google. The union’s court justice demanded Google remove hyperlinks which connects search engine to already deleted users content. It is because Google can delete a link such as Henri’s story, but they can be preserved by caching services (Gutwirth, Leenes, & De Hert, 2015). Therefore, this order from the European Union was to disable all deleted links from being accessed. It was a significant step to recalibrate the balance between privacy and free speech. Everyone has a freedom of speech to comment on a story based on personal’s opinions, but with a deleted link that no one can access, favors privacy of a person. Some links are dangerous to the morals of the community, and if replaced with educative links then the society would be a better place.
Google.com domain issue
Google has tried to protect this right from being deprived as it responded to about 100, 000 requests for the removal of links which were irrelevant or had insignificant information. However, the company has not gone far enough because this rule only worked for European domains such as Google.co.uk. And Google.fr. , but not Google.com itself. It implies that users who have the Google.com domain can still access the deleted links (Gutwirth et al. 2015). It is not fair at all, as the company should ensure the order given by EU applies to all users globally using all types of domains.
Internet privacy is an important subject in all places including school, workplace, and at home. Some countries such as the USA value the right to free speech more than privacy, and therefore it can be hard for the “right to be forgotten” to be applied. The most important party in the right to be forgotten is Google. Google should ensure only true stories are released and if a person is not comfortable being on the internet, then the link should be deleted. The internet affects people more than they think, not only socially but also mentally.