Google and the Right to Be Forgotten

Google and the Right to be Forgotten

In the case “Google and the Right to be Forgotten”, Mario Costeja Gonzales, a lawyer practicing in Spain, looked himself up on Google and found a newspaper article the discussed payments of debt. He thought this was something that could be damaging to his business. He requested from La Vanguardia, the newspaper, that the information be removed. Claiming that the information was no longer necessary since it had been resolved for years. He wanted the pages removed or altered so his personal information was no longer displayed. In Spain, he was making use of his right under the nations Data Protection Act. The newspaper responded that the information was obtained from public records and was published lawfully.

The Right to be Forgotten law was different in the US than in Europe. Therefore, Costeja got in contact with the Spanish Data Protection Agency (SDPA) to assist in the suit with Google Inc. Costeja had two requests, that La Vanguardia be required to either remove or alter the pages in question or use certain tools to protect the data, and that Google Inc. be required to remove or conceal the personal data relating to him so that the data would no longer appear in the search results.

The complaint against La Vanguardia was dismissed because they were sought to be published lawfully, however, the SDPA ordered Google to take “all reasonable steps to remove the disputed personal date from its index and preclude further access”. Google then filed an appeal and the case was referred to the European Court of Justice. Google argued that the publisher of the information’s should be the sole controller of the data published, and not the search engine. In 2014 the Court ruled against Google. The court argued that Google was allowing access to information that would not be accessible without the use of their search engine. Google removed Costeja’s disputed information from the search results, however the information was still available on the source site. Removal only meant accessibility was reduced because the link would not show up in a search.

By this ruling, the case set a stare decisis for future cases like this one. It has also pushed Google in making changes. They set up a form online for users to request the right to be forgotten, where each case will be evaluated and removed if approved. Google also formed an advisory council made up of eight independent experts to “advise it on performing the balancing act between and individuals right to privacy and the public’s interest in access to information”. In recommendation of the council, Google also created a set of criteria used in assessing requests to delist their information.

         The policy that Google has put in place, I believe, is the right choice. Technology has made privacy of others information more accessible and difficult. Information posted about one can be easily posted, not only by themselves, but by friends and the community. These days’ newspaper articles are available online, as well as blogs. It would be hard to determine which information should be up or take down based on the right to Freedom of Speech. Although there are some situations when the Right to be Forgotten should apply, such as released private information like social security number or credit card number. As well as, information that is years old and can damage one’s reputation in the present. The line that is placed between the two is very thin, therefore the criteria that Google made to determine whether information the information should be removed and not just wanted removed by an individual. If I was the CEO of Google Inc., I would keep the council that has helped with this issue and the cases of individuals seeking the Right to be Forgotten.