The issue came about during 2010 when Spanish citizen Mario Costeja Gonzales filed against a La Vanguardia newspaper, Google Spain and Google Inc. The individual claimed that a previous auction notice of his repossessed home on Google’s search engine interfered with his privacy rights, because the affair concerning him has been completely resolved for a number of years therefore, making the reference entirely irrelevant. The individual requested that the newspaper must alter their pages so that the personal information relating to him no longer appeared. As well as that, he also requested that Google Spain and Google Incorporated to remove any personal information relating to him, so that it no longer appeared in the search results.
The case after being referred to the European Court of Justice made the ruling that ‘individuals have the right – under certain conditions – to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data processing’. The Court found in Mario Costeja Gonzales’ case a person’s right to data protection could not be justified solely by the economic interest of the search engine.
Now in contemporary society, a case-by-case assessment is needed when considering the type of information that is being requested to be removed due to its sensitivity and how it will affect society.
How will the “Right to be Forgotten” law work in practice?
Search engines will have to delete information when it receives a request from a person to do so. Meaning that when an individual, whose personal data is accessible on search result listings, Google for example, will have to assess the removal request on a case-by-case assessment and apply the criteria stated in EU law.
In affect Google for example, may turn down the request for a particular reason. One example is that if the individual requesting the removal is in a public position or in the interest of the general public therefore, the information in question about that said individual may be needed to remain on the search engine’s listings.
However, on the basis of appeal an individual can complain to National Data Protection Supervisory authorities who are the arbiters of the application of the “Right to be Forgotten” law. All citizens in the EU have access to the “Right to be Forgotten” law, no matter their nationality.
Has the “Right to be Forgotten” law worked?
In most cases the “Right to be Forgotten” law has worked, in United States case law Melvin v. Reid 1931 an ex-prostitute was charged with murder and then acquitted. With the attempt to maintain an anonymous place in society continued life however, the 1925 film The Red Kimono revealed her history in which she sued the producer. The court stated, ‘any person living a life of rectitude has that right to happiness which includes freedom from unnecessary attacks on his character, social standing or reputation’.
However, in other cases the “Right to be Forgotten” law has worked in favour of the claimant. The case of Sidis v. FR Publishing Corp a former child prodigy who wanted a quiet life without recognition was written about by The New Yorker. The court stated, ‘that there is social value in published facts, and that a person cannot ignore their celebrity status merely because they want to’.
The US and the EU share similar interests as Obama’s Administration released a ‘Privacy Bill of Rights’ which upholds similar interests to the Privacy Act that references the “Right to be Forgotten” law. From analysis, the US has handled differentiating the criteria of the “Right to be Forgotten” law with success, from this the EU are using US precedent which can be used to benefit the EU with decision making.
In contemporary society, there have been cases in the EU where the “Right to be Forgotten” law has been used one example, is when a Telegraph article concerning a vicar who resigned after villagers accused him of standing naked at a vicarage window and swearing at children was removed using similar reasoning to the case of Melvin v. Reid.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the “Right to be Forgotten” law being established in the EU has been successful. It symbolises the fact that people who choose to live a life of rectitude have the right to have happiness in the form of having their past ‘in theory’ removed if needs be. For most people, the implementation of the law would have no effect on them therefore, it poses no threat to society either be positive or negative. In some instances, the “Right to be Forgotten” law doesn’t work in favour of the plaintiff and here it presents some equality issues. That every individual has the right to be treated equally – shown by the fact that ‘justice is blind’ in this case which it is not.
On the overall after much use, the law will be updated to keep up with social change. So far, the law has worked as demonstrated by the fact that after one year of implementation Google has had around 12,000 requests for the removal of personal data. Which means the “Right to be Forgotten” law has shown significant success, considering all aspects so far, the “Right to be Forgotten” law has worked and poses as a successful implementation by the EU.