1.
Ethan Merrill
2W
Link:
MLA Citation: Randazza, Marc. "We Need a 'right to Be Forgotten' Online." CNN. Cable News Network, Apr.-May 2014. Web. 02 Dec. 2014.
2.
The central claim of this editorial by Marc Randazza is that everyone needs has a right to be forgotten online. Randazza argues that everyone should be able to remove search results about themselves if the information is outdated or does not reflect who they are. This EU ruling says that privacy is a basic right and by permanently keeping search results, google is violating that right. The writer claims that the internet has perpetuated a society which holds mistakes to be forever.
3.
Randazza supports his claim with ethos, and comparisons. In the text, Randazza compares the storage of all of this information to the dossiers kept on individuals during the totalitarian regimes of the Cold War. Also, the author explains that in Europe, the EU cares about human rights, whereas in the U.S. real rights are only truly given to corporations. Indirectly, the statement is referring to the Citizens United ruling which gave U.S. corporations unlimited spending power in politics by saying that money is speech. Finally, the most significant piece of evidence used to support that claim is the example of a Spanish man who wanted one of his search results removed. This is the man who created the court case, so he is central to this issue. This spanish person, when googled had a record of him defaulting on loans, or something similar, on google. He argued that this no longer reflected his current self.
4.
Before reading this article, I was very much on the side of Google, by not wanting to give European the right to be forgotten. After reading the article, I can see the other side of the argument, and I have shifted more towards center, however my viewpoint has not changed. I think that Google should not be responsible for taking down individual seach results because they are only indexing them, not hosting them. Asking Google to take down results is like taking away the street names, it would be a lot more difficult to find addresses, but they would still be there. So this law should really go after the people hosting the information AKA the addresses, not Google, which provides the street signs. Also this ruling is the first way to censor the internet
No comments:
Post a Comment