We are told that "nothing on the Internet is private." So said an expert quoted way back in 2011. The Internet is a series of inputs from various sources, which may in fact replicate and duplicate as information is spread, saved, and shared. There are server farms that collect and preserve vast quantities of data. Until recently, even the Library of Congress worked to preserve "everything." There is therefore a potentially false security when some sites promise or suggest privacy. But, there are examples of old material being restated. The expert above concluded back then "don't post anything online you wouldn't want everyone to see."
How many times do headlines proclaim "in a now-deleted post?" There was an instance just last week where allegations were made "in the passion of the moment," then apologized for. The fact that something was posted is memorialized and rebroadcast. MarketWatch notes that "public figures and brands have scrambled to cover up social media faux pas with varying degrees of success." There is a discussion there about deleting postings because of "technical" or grammatical errors/omissions. However, the recommendation for posts later deemed offensive is “own it and let people know you were in the wrong -- honesty says a lot about your character.”
There are undoubtedly times in each of our pasts that we would prefer to forget. In the age of the Internet, it is increasingly hard to forget perhaps. And that difficulty may itself affect us. If you have no such embarrassing times or instances, congratulations. But, it is likely that most of us have lived less-than-perfect lives. The pervasiveness of the Internet, and the ease with which information is replicated and propagated, came to mind reading on the British Broadcasting Company (BBC): German murderer wins right to be forgotten.
This German was convicted in 1982, about 37 years ago. He "was handed a life sentence for murdering two people." The "life sentence" turned out to be only 20 years, he was "released from jail in 2002." And, he is perturbed that his personal history is following him. He filed a lawsuit to force online archives to constrain people's access to the reporting of his crime, conviction, and release. He is specifically focused on "three reports from 1982 and 1983 which included" his "full name." These were uploaded to a website in 1999 by a magazine.
When the murderer "became aware of the articles in 2009," he asked the magazine to remove the articles or restrict access; "he claimed they violated his rights and his 'ability to develop his personality.'" In essence, the murdered claimed that his right to privacy should preclude this information from being publicly available. Certainly, such information might affect how one's neighbors, acquaintances, and prospective employers might perceive or view one.
The German Court recently sided with the murderer. It concluded that publications may be forced to remove archives "if asked." The privacy issue is being referred to as the "right to be forgotten," which the BBC concedes is "controversial." Having a peeked interest from the BBC article, I did what we all do when curious, I Googled "right to be forgotten." Turns out the concept is not as novel as one might initially presume.
In the European Union, there are written parameters about the archiving of data, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GPDR. This sets up a process and "regulates erasure obligations." According to TechCrunch, the implementation of GPDR came in 2018, following work that began in 2012. The effort was to address changes in technology since the early days of the Internet, believe it or not in 1995, "when Yahoo was the cutting edge of online cool and cookies were still just tasty biscuits."
The stated purpose is "to give citizens back control over their personal data." The perception at least is that those who possess information have been somewhat relaxed in their approaches to both maintaining and protecting it, and our privacy. TechCrunch noted that the European Union regulation is being codified into individual national laws. Perhaps ironically, the prediction was that Britain would continue to strive toward compliance despite its recent Brexit effort. TechCunch contends that Britain needs to keep "EU-UK data flowing freely in the post-Brexit future." Thus, an inclination to remain cognizant and compliant with GPDR despite its departure from the union.
The experts contend similarly that companies throughout the world will perhaps adopt EU-compliant practices as their fundamental business paradigm. This is because the "GDPR does not merely apply to EU businesses." Its requirements instead protect the rights of EU citizens. So, any company in the world that handles "the personal data of EU citizens needs to comply." The argument is therefore that this law "casts the European Union as a global pioneer in data protection," and sets a bar or standard of some privacy modicum. As it is, access to many websites is impossible from a European server as companies consciously avoid the collection of those people's data (cookies, etc.) to similarly avoid the implication of this law.
The effect of this GPDR standard, therefore, may be that U.S. and other country's businesses will be forced to adopt privacy policies that specifically and solely comply with EU law, or instead "swallow the hassle and expense of fragmenting their data handling processes, and treating personal data obtained from different geographies differently." Or, they may simply continue to foreclose European access to their service or products. The focus on geographies could itself become challenging as humans are mobile; the protection is for EU citizens, who could travel for a Florida vacation and have their data collected when they access a website from their hotel WiFi. There are even some who contend the European regulation could have impacts on the U.S. Government.
Some will perhaps see Orwellian, dystopian, implications. Should the news be rewritten to help murderers hide? There may be more sympathy for our right to commercial privacy, and thus a reason to censor commercial speech (how many times do I order from a particular vendor, a particular product, etc.). Should someone's picture posted to social media as a child remain on the Internet forever, no matter how embarrassing or unwanted? Remember that line from Nickleback in Look at this Photograph? The band there focuses on looking through a photo album, but what if it is instead a picture on the Internet when we similarly question "what the _____ is on Joey's head?"
Even if we conclude that what you personally allow to be posted to the Internet should be subject to your recall or deletion, the application of such a right to erase or conceal someone's violent past is curious and intriguing. This is the erasure of news. It is suggested that most would perhaps be interested in knowing if the house next door is now being inhabited by a murderer? There is seemingly the potential for conflict between one person's right to privacy and society's desire to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the broader population.
Even if we conclude that what you personally allow to be posted to the Internet should be subject to your recall or deletion, the application of such a right to erase or conceal someone's violent past is curious and intriguing. This is the erasure of news. It is suggested that most would perhaps be interested in knowing if the house next door is now being inhabited by a murderer? There is seemingly the potential for conflict between one person's right to privacy and society's desire to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the broader population.
Technology evolution continues around us. The Internet broke into our collective consciousness only about 30 years ago. Various platforms have achieved acceptance or dominance, and faded. The law has struggled to adapt to and interpret the implications of data preservation, access, and sharing. Those struggles will continue. The world itself shrinks through our access to information, and our ability to catalog, retrieve, and express information. A great many of us have voluntarily ceded our privacy to belong to a platform, to participate in some online quiz, to access news, or simply to shop. Though we are increasingly aware, many of us continue to persistently divulge personal information online.
Time will tell how successful government efforts at protecting our privacy may be. Laws and regulations will likely bring more warnings ("by continuing to use this site you accept our use of cookies" or "by being here, you waive some modicum of your privacy"). Time will tell how evolving regulation or restriction in one jurisdiction implicates or influences privacy in another. As the miracle of the Internet shrinks our world and brings us all closer together, the implications of varying laws and societal norms may continue to drive conversation, conflict, and litigation. The very "worldwide" nature of the Internet will facilitate issues of jurisdiction, conflicting laws, and certainly privacy.
Perhaps none of this is a real change. Perhaps how privacy is or is not respected has always come down to societal norms (Nathaniel Hawthorne and The Scarlet Letter, published in 1850). It may or may not be appropriate for us to know our new neighbor was (is?) a murderer. But, what has changed is that the society is increasingly not local. The treatment of Hester Prynne is no longer an issue for one Puritan community in one American state, but a larger, global issue potentially subject to the laws of jurisdictions far away. As a result, the traditional or even constitutional protections for freedom of the press or even public records may come into conflict with laws a world away.
The one certainty, expressed by the BBC, is "it’s definitely a good time to be a law firm specializing in data protection." And, as time passes, it may be an equally good time to be a lawyer specializing in conflict of laws.
The one certainty, expressed by the BBC, is "it’s definitely a good time to be a law firm specializing in data protection." And, as time passes, it may be an equally good time to be a lawyer specializing in conflict of laws.
