• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

NetFamilyNews.org

Kid tech intel for everybody

Show Search
Hide Search
  • Home
  • Youth
  • Parenting
  • Literacy
  • Safety
  • Policy
  • Research
  • About NetFamilyNews.org
    • Supporters
    • Anne Collier’s Bio
    • Copyright
    • Privacy

Remember: The ‘right to be forgotten’ is shared

May 21, 2014 By Anne Leave a Comment

A lot has been published and broadcast about Internet users’ “right to be forgotten,” long before and since last week’s ruling by a high court in Europe (see the BBC), including the important points that…

  • Scratching the surface. Suing a search engine to take down links to offending content doesn’t mean the content itself gets taken down
  • EU Court of JusticeWho decides? A court has made search engines, of all things, “judge and jury in deciding what gets removed and what is in the public interest and therefore remains [in search results]” (these two points, thanks to Stephen Balkam of the Family Online Safety Institute in the Huffington Post)
  • Erasing history? What one person wants expunged from public record is sometimes something other people or institutions feel should be in the public record. Internet policy scholar Adam Thierer at George Mason University told Tech News World that the European court’s ruling “opens the door to a new censorship regime” disguised as privacy protection.
  • A blunt instrument. “How an individual’s reputation is protected online is too important and subtle a policy matter to be legislated by a high court” (the above and this point also made by Harvard University law and computer science professor Jonathan Zittrain in the New York Times)
  • “Right” is wrong. It’s not really a right to be forgotten, according to Netherlander Joris van Hoboken, among 8 other fascinating reasons for why the “right” is wrong in his 2011 PhD dissertation. That phrase really overstates the basic data protection principle this is about – “purpose limitation” (keeping data uploaded for one purpose from spreading to another, e.g., not having a private email turned into a status update to all your friends) – and turns it into an emotionally charged issue of reputation and second chances focused on what turns up in search engine results (this reminds me of, in the last decade, state attorneys general prescribing technology as the solution to a different perceived social problem – and prescribing before there was a diagnosis).

What policymakers have to understand

But there’s one final, very crucial point in all this that isn’t prominent enough in the public discussion: the nature of the “content” we’re all talking about.

It seems policymakers and courts are making laws and decisions about what content was, not is. They’re talking about content as if it’s in a digitized book or magazine, content of the mass media environment of their childhoods or even the Web of the 1990s, when people were interacting with content more than each other. They seem to think of content as something created and published by a single individual or entity – something that’s static or finished rather than ongoing, posted, updated, changed, remixed, etc. in real time. What’s linked to in a search engine is a freeze frame of a moment in time, very often a moment experienced and owned by more than one participant. How can anyone set good and just policy on “content” – much less its producers – until he or she fully understands it?

Related links

  • “OSTWG report: Why a ‘living Internet’?”, when I first posted about content as a “living thing” – when a task force I was honored to co-chair released its report to Congress in 2010.
  • Examples of how legislation aimed at protecting children’s privacy is just as likely to jeopardize it: “Flawed early laws of our new media environment”
  • Zooming in on some unintended consequences of the US’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act: “The ‘minimum age’ and other unintended consequences of COPPA”; “COPPA has likely increased minors’ risk: Study”; and the good news in a 2011 study: “Kids lying to Facebook, not their parents”
  • “Aggregated extortion, digital footprints’ dark side & second chances”
Share Button

Filed Under: Law & Policy, Literacy & Citizenship, Privacy Tagged With: Adam Thierer, Court of Justice, European Union, Jonathan Zittrain, Joris van Hoboken, Right to Be Forgotten, Stephen Balkam

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

NFN in your in-box:

Anne Collier


Bio and my...
2016 TEDx Talk on
the heart of digital citizenship

Subscribe to my
RSS feed
Follow me on Twitter or even better:
NEW: Follow me on MASTODON!
Friend me on Facebook
See me on YouTube

IMPORTANT RESOURCES

Our (DIGITAL) PARENTING BASICS: Safety + Social
NAMLE, the National Association for Media Literacy Education
CASEL.org & the 5 core social-emotional competencies of SEL
Center for Democracy & Technology
Center for Innovative Public Health Research
Childnet International
Committee for Children
Congressional Internet Caucus Academy
ConnectSafely.org
Control Shift: a pivotal book for Internet safety
Crimes Against Children Research Center
Crisis Textline
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative's Revenge Porn Crisis Line
Cyberwise.org
danah boyd's blog and book about networked youth
Disconnected, Carrie James's book on digital ethics
FOSI.org's Good Digital Parenting
The research of Global Kids Online
The Good Project at Harvard's School of Education
If you watch nothing else: "Parenting in a Digital Age" TED Talk by Prof. Sonia Livingstone
The International Bullying Prevention Association
Let Grow Foundation
Making Caring Common
Raising Digital Natives, author Devorah Heitner's site
Renee Hobbs at the Media Education Lab
MediaSmarts.ca
The New Media Literacies
Report of the Aspen Task Force on Learning & the Internet and our guide to Creating Trusted Learning Environments
The Ruler Approach to social-emotional learning (Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence)
Sources of Strength
"Young & Online: Perspectives on life in a digital age" from young people in 26 countries (via UNICEF)
"Youth Safety on a Living Internet": 2010 report of the Online Safety & Technology Working Group (and my post about it)

Categories

Recent Posts

  • The missing piece in US child online safety law
  • Generative AI: July 2023 freeze frame
  • Threads: The new social media kid
  • Surgeon general’s advisory: Let’s take stock
  • Lawmakers, controlling and banning kids doesn’t help
  • New clarity on child sexual exploitation online
  • Game-changer: Child rights-by-design
  • Why I struggle mightily with the new Utah law

Footer

Welcome to NetFamilyNews!

Founded as a nonprofit public service in 1999, NetFamilyNews quickly became the “community newspaper” of a vital interest community of subscribers in more than 50 countries. Site and newsletter became a blog in the early 2000s. Nowadays, you can subscribe in the box to the right to receive articles in your in-box as they're posted – or look for toots on Mastodon or posts on our Facebook page, LinkedIn and Medium.com. She welcomes your comments, follows and shares!

Categories

  • Home
  • Youth
  • Parenting
  • Literacy
  • Safety
  • Policy
  • Research

ABOUT

  • About NFN
  • Supporters
  • Anne Collier’s Bio
  • Copyright
  • Privacy

Search

Subscribe



THANKS TO NETFAMILYNEWS.ORG's SUPPORTER HOMESCHOOL CURRICULUM.
Copyright © 2023 ANNE COLLIER. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.