Reading this week about what was required, on a practical level and a legal level, to provide the right to be forgotten made me think how futile it would be. For example, the O'Hara article states that search engines would have a defence against having to remove content "when the individual involved is a public figure, whose private life may be of legitimate public interest" (p. 75). My question here is, who determines whether or not someone is a "public figure"? What if someone becomes famous through no intent of their own and then wants their name removed from search results? I'm thinking here about anyone who may have had video of them "go viral" for whatever reason, video that they did not consent to or perhaps weren't even aware of. Sometimes people to not become "public figures" by their own choice and I would imagine in such cases the right to be forgotten would be all the more valuable.
Perhaps a more effective solution to this problem, although not a very desirable one, would be to make it easier for people to change their names. If someone truly wants to hide from their past or be forgotten, and here I'm thinking about a reformed criminal who has done their time, perhaps our new panoptic society owes individuals in these situations an amount of protection once they are full citizens again. Certainly such protection would help them to become active, contributing members of society once again (find job, get a mortgage, etc.). Witnesses to crimes can enter a protection program, perhaps former criminals should have the same tools to provide anonymity. Wacky idea perhaps, but... plausible?
--Brandon Kidd
Those are very unique perspectives, and a good point about the definition of a "public figure" and unintentional public figures such as reformed criminals, and accidental internet sensations such as the victims of memes. Unfortunately, if there was an increase in name changes, perhaps someone would come up with a database for identifying people who have changed their names!
ReplyDelete