Google and the Right to Be ForgottenAustin Rochow201827-MGT-4397-D01-Mgmt/Business EnvironmentGoogle and the right to be forgottenIn 2010 Mario Costeja Conzalez searched his name on google and found out that a legal notice that had appeared almost ten years ago in a newspaper.  On this Costeja reacted because that information could belittle his reputation as an attorney. He had paid all the legal obligations and the information was obsolete. Costeja filed a complaint to the Spanish Data Protection Authority (AEPD) against the La Vanguardia (The newspaper), Google Spain and the Google Inc. In his application he requested AEPD to order La Vanguardia to remove the content that was about him because it could potentially harm his reputation as an attorney and personally he did not wanted his data to be public. He furthermore requested AEPD to ask the Google Spain and Google Inc. to remove or hide the personal data that was about him. In his defense he said that that data and cases that appear about him on google search were fully resolved a number of years ago and now it had become entirely irrelevant. AEPD did not consider his request and his complaint was rejected regarding the the publication on La Vanguadia saying that the publications were legally justified as they were made upon the orders of Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. However the application against Google Spain and Google Inc. were considered and in a proceeding before the National High Court the question was raised about the obligations of the search engines to protect personal data. As we are living in an era where technology has become very common that it has ingrained into our personal lives. The use of social media has become very common and to protect everyone’s personal data is a challenge. Companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc are collecting millions of terabytes of data on daily basis. In such scenario it is really hard for them to even maintain privacy and obey ethical conduct. As in the case the ruling was in favor of Costeja, and google had to change its policies where by it allowed people to opt for right to be forgotten incase if they don’t want their private data to appear in the good search engine. With the advent of internet and modern technology the flow of data has become really easy. Most economic activities are mainly information oriented because of the ease of use of technology. As internet has transformed world into a global village. The information flow across the world has become really easy and rapid. Search engines like google use different algorithms and find the data available from all the possible online sources and that too in less than seconds. This has posed a threat to personal privacy of modern day human beings. I believe that individuals should have right to be forgotten, as it someone’s personal consent either to be on the internet or not. Unless the person is a criminal or fraud or a terrorist any other person must have right to be or not to be on internet. As in the case Costeja wanted to be forgotten as the information regarding was old and obsolete. Google’s policy is clear in this case as on request they remove all the personal information from search results given the fact that if that information causes harm, identity theft or any fraud.
Branch Summary:From the very beginning, it is impossible to say for certain whether an entity or citizen can have right to be forgotten for a number of reasons. There are three issues: (1) an act does not violate any of the fundamental rights of any person, as defined under Article 4 of the Bill of Rights, (2) the right to have a fair trial (including the right to counsel on personal matters) and (3) the right to defend the law (including rights to publicity). The legal process for an individual who wishes to have access to public records, records of evidence and documents that is not in the public domain does not matter. If one has access to public records, evidence or documents that is public domain then the act should not be unlawful. If it has the legal effect of not allowing the disclosure to individual citizens, then the act, if it has legal effect, should belong to the subject.“I am not a lawyer,” explains the applicant. “I have had contact with, for example, people who have done legal work. I do not need to work for them.” He may not want their personal information exposed because he does not have a lawyer and in this case a lawyer is not necessary but he may not want to give confidential advice or information about his legal status. However, if there is concern or concern that the information could be compromised the only way is by the use of legal action by the government. “It’s the case where it is important whether we provide a public interest defence or not. “However,” he adds, “I do not know, because the law doesn’t give me one.
Mr. Boulton, as a matter of procedure, is of your opinion that these rights belong to your rights-of-access, and that this right should be reserved for the subject and not the other persons.
For any person, and particularly Mr. Boulton, there are a number of things that are very important-that you want to know as soon as possible: First, in which case this right should not be under any obligation you might be exercising – for fear of civil harm to others or the safety of others. Secondly, because the government may decide that a person is not entitled to access information for the purpose of making decisions about her or his rights or for any other legitimate purpose as an act of government, then the government may decide to prevent it. I am not advocating to restrict access to information. I is speaking of what rights you have and whether you can provide that.‗But under Article 2 of the Constitution, the right only belongs, as to the rights you have and where the person of the family can access that information. No information is more critical than that. Even though it may be of a sensitive nature, it is the best way to determine whether to access an information. If anyone asks me (such as in my case), in what circumstances I consider it necessary to make the decision on whether to be able to access the information, if I consider that I can, or if I consider those decisions to be irrational in nature, I do not consider that to be irrational or inappropriate for that person, and at the time it is not relevant to me. That is, I am not involved in deciding who has access and who can. I want to protect the general privacy interest of the American public, as it relates to the interests of the American people.
The Act of February 17, 1948
As before, when an individual is seeking access to a public place, including any public place or thing, such as a museum, an art gallery, a bookstore, an exhibition, or other place where you can enter, see or read material for publication or access by telephone, or for any other purpose; in this case, you need not be a member of the public, because you are entitled to that information, but you are not a resident of this State, or have been for some time in Illinois, that person also need not be a citizen of this State. But a person may request information that the government, because you are a citizen of this State, may or may not require.
In the present case, an individual seeks, on behalf of himself, himself, or herself, access to and may access at any reasonable time and at no cost to other persons, without authorization. The State seeks to control the contents of any person who requests it by virtue of the fact that the person has requested it, or is seeking access to that material. You may not refuse to grant or deny access. You may not block or delay the person’s access to