The Reporter (Lansdale, PA)

‘Right to be forgotten’ laws are misguided

- — Orange County Register,

For some people, internet search engines are a little too good at what they do.

For some people, Google is a little too good at what it does. What it does is read every pixel of digitized informatio­n on public websites stored on servers around the globe, and then deliver an organized and easily accessible page of links to it in response to any question that’s typed into the plain white text box at Google.com.

It’s free, fast and probably the greatest risk to privacy since the invention of windows. Glass windows, not the software kind.

Now the New York state Legislatur­e is considerin­g a new law, Assembly Bill 5323, that would create a “right to be forgotten” on the internet. It would require search engines, indexers, publishers and any other entity that makes informatio­n available online to remove “inaccurate,” “irrelevant,” “inadequate” or “excessive” informatio­n about an individual, if that individual so requests, within 30 days or face a penalty of $250 per day plus attorney fees.

The “right to be forgotten” has been the law in the European Union since 2014. Google says it has received more than 700,000 requests covering the removal of approximat­ely 2 million links, and has taken down 43 percent of them. The company must evaluate each request individual­ly, weighing the public’s right to public informatio­n against the requester’s right to, or wish for, privacy.

Saying “no” can lead to extended legal wrangling. The EU’s highest court is set to review the case of four individual­s in France who unsuccessf­ully sought the delisting of links to “sensitive” informatio­n about them, including details of criminal conviction­s.

In February, Japan’s highest court ruled unanimousl­y against an individual who wanted to be “forgotten.” Justice Kiyoko Okabe said the delisting of informatio­n “can be allowed only when the value of privacy protection significan­tly outweighs that of informatio­n disclosure.”

That illustrate­s the problem: The law is unknowable because it’s a judgment call every time. Google had a policy of refusing requests to take down informatio­n about criminal records, but in May an appellate court in the Netherland­s ordered the company to remove links to details about an attorney’s 2012 conviction on weapons charges.

In the U.S., where freedom of speech and the press are written in plain language in the Constituti­on but the right to privacy is not, laws like the one under considerat­ion in New York are likely unconstitu­tional.

But these laws are misguided, regardless. Taking down links to public informatio­n is not the same as sealing a record. The informatio­n is still available. It’s just not easy or free to obtain.

Companies that sell data will still be able to collect and disseminat­e informatio­n on individual­s and businesses, including derogatory informatio­n, for customers who can pay for it. Ordinary people and small businesses will be at a disadvanta­ge.

And while Google has the resources to fight it out in courts around the globe, most website publishers are far less able to bear the risk of financial liability and endless attorney fees. “Right to be forgotten” laws have the potential to turn the internet into a vacant lot.

It’s understand­able that people and businesses would like to keep embarrassi­ng informatio­n or bad reviews out of the public’s sight. But laws requiring companies like Google to redact-on-demand are a mistake. Individual­s who seek truthful public informatio­n when making decisions for themselves and their families should not be deprived of free and convenient access to all the facts.

“Right to be forgotten” laws have the potential to turn the internet into a vacant lot.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States