Analyzing Google and the Right to be Forgotten: An Essay

This essay examines the complex issue of the right to be forgotten in the context of Google's search engine and its impact on individual privacy. The essay explores how technology has amplified threats to personal privacy and control over personal data, citing the case of Mario Costeja Gonzalez as a pivotal example. It delves into the question of whether individuals should have the right to request the removal of information from the internet, the limitations of such a right, and contrasts the approaches to individual privacy in the United States and Europe. The essay further analyzes Google's responsibility in modifying search results based on individual requests, the criteria for doing so, and the limits of the resources the company should expend. Finally, it offers a perspective on balancing individual privacy rights with the public's interest in information, and the right to distribute information, from the viewpoint of a Google executive.

Running head: GOOGLE AND THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN
1
Google and the Right to Be Forgotten1
Institution
Student
Date

GOOGLE AND THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN1
2
Google and the Right to Be Forgotten1
Question 1: In what ways has technology made it more difficult for individuals to protect their
privacy?
Technology has progressively become a threat to people’s privacy. Every person values his/her
privacy as well as the protection of their private scope of life. However, current advancements in
in technology are substantially threatening privacy and simultaneously reducing the amount of
control people have over personal data. As demonstrated in the case study, technology has
opened up the possibility of a range of deleterious consequences since it is enabling some
unauthorized users to access other people’s private information. Technology supports online
communications through various platforms that are prone to fall in the wrong hands, thus
violating the privacy of the users. Besides, technological systems such as Google search engines
and organization’s systems that are used to store individual’s data can be tempered with, hence
putting the people’s information at risk. These high-tech systems can also be accessed by any
person some with a bad intention of misusing individual’s private information. Some authorized
users such as hackers, for examples, can access online data with a purpose of stealing, distorting,
or destroying it by installing detrimental malware without the consent of the owner.
Question 2: Do you believe an individual should have the right to be forgotten, that is, to
remove information about themselves from the Internet? If so, should this right be limited,
and if so, how?

GOOGLE AND THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN1
3
Yes, I believe that a person should be granted the right to be forgotten by deleting their
information from repositories. The right to be forgotten has been a controversial issue that has
been debated for many years, and it is now a law in the European Union. The rationale behind
this right is that it is the interest of every individual not be punished, stigmatized, or adversely
judged due to some infractions that took place long time ago that do not represent who they are
at the moment. However, the right to be forgotten should only be limited and granted only to
those lawbreakers who have served their sentences and have undergone complete rehabilitation.
Notwithstanding the felony committed, some people rehabilitate, and it is prudent to remove any
Internet information that can tarnish their current reputation (Clark, 2016).
Question 3: How does public policy with respect to individual privacy differ in the United
States and Europe, and what explains these differences?
United States and Europe have different approaches in their attempts to protect individual
privacy. In Europe, there a major legal instrument, the European Data Protection Directive 95/46
which outlines the suitable scope of national laws that relate to individual information and the
processing of that information. In the US, on the other hand, there is no any federal privacy law
though some states have enacted statues that prevent unauthorized individuals from tempering
with other people’s privacy. Substantial disparities in legal philosophies led to a diminutive
support of decrees and Acts that related to individual privacy. Besides, in the EU, the primary
purpose of the right to be forgotten and privacy is to empower people, not about deleting past
occurrences or limiting freedom of press. Unlike in EU, in the US, the right to be forgotten that
would be formed after the First Amendment would be meant to enforce. Europe’s intention is to

GOOGLE AND THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN1
4
give individuals optimal control over their private information whilst in the US, it unlawful to
obtain data from the public without the consent of the owners (Clark, 2016).
Question 4: Do you think Google should be responsible for modifying its search results in
response to individual requests? If so, what criteria should it use in doing so? Are there limits
to the resources the company should be expected expend to comply with such requests?
I agree Google should be responsible for modifying research results in response to individual’s
request. This would an effective approach of protecting people’s privacy and enacting the right
to be forgotten. Google should be curating personal data from search results on an individual’s
name when irrelevant, devoid of purpose, inadequate, inaccurate, or outdated, and when there are
no public interests. Google can modify search results by including additional options in the
search result elements. Nonetheless, Google should put some limits and modify search results
that are most likely to deprive an individual of his/her rights to privacy (Clark, 2016).
Information that is bound to abuse the privacy of an individual or an organization should be
modified as a way adhering to various stipulated privacy laws and statutes.
Question 5: If you were a Google executive, how would you balance the privacy rights of the
individual with the public’s interest to know and the right to distribute information?
The privacy rights of the individual with the public’s interest to know and the right to distribute
information will only depend on the individual willingly accepting for his/her information to be
shared on the internet. As the Google executive it is my obligation to maintain the information
private and only release with the consent of the individual or as per his/her acceptance. However,
the information will solely depend on the person who wants it before being released to the public
(Clark, 2016).

GOOGLE AND THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN1
5
Reference
Clark, C. E. (2016). Google and the Right to Be Forgotten. ResearchGate, 1/19.