Right to be Forgotten in Digital Age

This assignment delves into the concept of 'right to be forgotten' in the digital era. It examines how individuals can request the removal of outdated or irrelevant personal information from search engine results, highlighting the legal and ethical implications surrounding this right. The text discusses the challenges posed by data permanence online and the potential consequences for privacy and individual control over personal information. It also touches upon the role of search engines like Google in navigating these complexities.

Foundations of MIS & CBT

Right to be Forgotten
It can be stated that Right to be Forgotten is the
concept that was founded in 2006 in European
Union and Argentina. However, such right
empowers individuals and thus putforth to
delete or remove any data from digital platform
(Klingenberg, 2016.). However, it is stated as a
crime and therefore it encompasses the right of
privacy and freedom of speech so that it helps
in establishing that no compelling reason exists
in carrying out the presence of data. It is
related to the law and thus assesses that
different search engines are capable of
crawling the web to find and store data even if
the websites are went offline. However, there
are certain rights which are allowed to carry
out right to be forgotten only when carrying
out specific circumstances-
 Main purpose of which the data was
uploaded on search engine become
redundant.
 However, process of personal data is
unlawful and thus using them is an
offence.
 Also, removal of data is mandatory.
 It also helps in providing information in
relation to society and thus using their
informants is fraud.
Google's takes right to be forgotten battle to
France's highest court
Here, company is found appealing against the
decision of court that French Data Protection
authority to effectively apply the search ruling
to all its domains. However, Google appeals to
the France high court over the legal rules that
could enforce it to censor the search results
worldwide (Parmar, 2014). Here, the right
needs Google to remove all the links to the
pages which appear to be inadequate,
inappropriate or irrelevant. However, Google
rejected such rules and thus complies with the
law of the particular country in which they are
operating. Further, in one case, Google is
bound to apply one specific country law across
all its domains. But it is essential for firm to
carry out copyright protections and thus right
to be forgotten sets to an international
standards.
 Right to be forgotten needs to be
carried out in an effective way and thus
protects the data through safeguarding
personal information.
 Also, the law needs to be made strong
so that protection of personal
information could be done on social
media websites. It is a dispute that
needs to be settled down by the court
and make judgement so that individual

rights could not be affected.
There are various outcomes which need to be
follows by google with the highest court over a
legal ruling. It could be force to censor which
covers search results over the worldwide area.
The search firm can filled an appeal with the
Conseil and the French court.
 In EU nations it is ensures that version
of Google is detected a user of Britain.
In addition to this, European parliament
approves tougher data privately that can
be describes within a 10 months. They
are complied with laws and principles,
in which company is operating.
 Beside this, laws are globally taken
place that demonstrate long term
demanding system through regulate
informations. However, google is
bound with applying laws across the
nation with all domains (Parmar,
2014.).
At the final aspect it says that matters of
administrative law is attempt which overturn to
ruling from different part of the country (Bunn,
2015.). It also describes right requirement by
customer or viewer to remove links to pages
which can be appear through inadequate to
data protection authority. In addition to this,
since March search term is remove and across
the Europe the company listed about 6,00,000
results from responds.
There are various outcomes which need to be follows by google with the highest court
over a legal ruling. It could be force to censor which covers search results over the worldwide
area. The search firm can filled an appeal with the Conseil and the French court. At the final
aspect it says that matters of administrative law is attempt which overturn to ruling from
different part of the country (Bunn, 2015.). It also describes right requirement by customer or
viewer to remove links to pages which can be appear through inadequate to data protection
authority. In addition to this, since March search term is remove and across the Europe the
company listed about 6,00,000 results from responds. In EU nations it is ensures that version of
Google is detected a user of Britain. In addition to this, European parliament approves tougher
3

data privately that can be describes within a 10 months. They are complied with laws and
principles, in which company is operating. Beside this, laws are globally taken place that
demonstrate long term demanding system through regulate informations. However, google is
bound with applying laws across the nation with all domains (Parmar, 2014.).
Reflective
With the help of this assignment, it has been assessed that google is the very effective
search engine that could be reflective for public outcomes. In this aspect, with removing various
links we can produce effective article on right to be forgotten. In this way, new organisation must
be develops their outcomes with the help of investigations and journalism, it has been identified
that money and hard work is placed that would be requires performing functions and operations.
When everyone read this article, they can easily support to make future decisions and secure it
for delivering effective results.
Due to some financial difficulties, it is essential to demonstrate property of Mario was put
up for auction. In this way, details of the business are provides to maintain and cover-up
subsequently. In this aspect, online action happen in 1998 with troubles are also behind it.
4
Illustration 1: Image positioned
Source: (Klingenberg, 2016)

Internet never forgot anything. Google and other search engines are extremely efficient at
crawling the web which assist to store data. In addition to this, when websites are taken offline it
catches and kept to the meaning which can be access at workplace. This is beneficial to make
useful web as possible. It found that search results are demonstrating wide implications with EU
that can be push heavily for new data privacy. It argued that old, irrelevant and inaccurate data
should be avoid to the results which can be measure through person involved within the process.
Decisions are also taken through capturing that maintenance information which need to be
removed from search engines. In this aspect, sensitivity for data subject is privately owned that
create interest of people in particular outcomes. According to the role of people, who are playing
it in subject of public life. Basically with the jargon, information remove which create impact on
each individual and their privacy (Grafenstein and Schulz, 2015).
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bunn, A., 2015. The curious case of the right to be forgotten. Computer Law & Security Review.
31(3). pp.336-350.
Choi, Y., Kwon, O. G. and Won, D., 2016. A Study on Invasion of Privacy and Right to be
forgotten by Internet Cookie Technology. Journal of Internet Computing and Services.
17(2). pp.77-85.
Grafenstein, M. V. and Schulz, W., 2015. The right to be forgotten in data protection law: a
search for the concept of protection. International Journal of Public Law and Policy.
5(3). pp.249-269.
Klingenberg, A. M., 2016. Catches to the right to be forgotten, looking from an administrative
law perspective to data processing by public authorities. International Review of Law,
Computers & Technology. 30(1-2). pp.67-75.
Parmar, M., 2014. Memorialising 40 years since Idi Amin's expulsion: Digital ‘memory mania’to
the ‘right to be forgotten’. South Asian Popular Culture. 12(1). pp.1-14.
6