has to be more than 200 wordsHas Google gone far enough to protect this right from being deprived? Privacy and the Right to Be ForgottenHenri was a well-known shopkeeper and café owner in a small town on the outskirts of Paris. He wasthrust into a vortex of controversy in the summer of 2007 when he was falsely accused of sexualharassment by a disgruntled clerk under his employment. Henri was completely exonerated, but linksto old, damaging articles in the local newspaper remained accessible through Google. That newspaperwas particularly aggressive in its initial coverage of the events and did not give Henri the benefit of thedoubt despite his protestations of innocence. Years later, people still brought up the incident to him orhis family, often with an accusatory tone. Henri wanted this portion of his past, full of these falseallegations and innuendos, to be expunged. Since most people came across this reporting through theirsearch of Google.fr, he had asked Google for its help in suppressing the links to these old stories. Googlewas not interested in responding to his repeated requests for its assistance in removing these links.There are two attributes of Internet data that cause problems for victims like Henri: Internet data isboth permanent and easily accessible. Web pages are rarely deleted, and sometimes those that aredeleted are nevertheless preserved by caching services like Google Cache and the Internet Archive. Atthe same time, search engines like Google and Bing make all of that data exceptionally easy to access.It seemed that people like Henri would never be able to control incriminating information about theirpast circulating on the Internet. However, in 2014 the European Union Court of Justice issued asurprising court order against Google. It demanded that the search engine company remove hyperlinksthat connect search engine users to content that is "no longer necessary," or "inadequate, irrelevant,or no longer relevant." Exceptions are warranted if there is some "preponderance of public interest"at stake. Thus, if someone like Henri asks Google to remove these links to "irrelevant" and outdatedmaterial, the search engine company must oblige this request. The European Court's decision wasbased on the "right to be forgotten," which was cited as a basic aspect of a person's overall privacyrights. The legal authority of this right to be forgotten is found in the Data Protection Directive adoptedby the European Parliament in 1995.The Directive established a comprehensive privacy framework in the European Union, requiring thatdata "controllers" respect the privacy rights of all "data subjects." Advocates of this right claim thatindividuals should be able to insist on the removal of old, irrelevant material that infringes on theirbasic privacy rights. Skeptics of this new legal development, on the other hand, expressed their uneaseabout the burdens placed on search engine companies like Google. There was also concern that thedeletion of these links for private interests could lead to "counterfeit histories." What about thepublic's right to know this information that is now filtered out thanks to an individual's complaintsabout irrelevancy?The EU's decision establishes a new but more precarious boundary between privacy and free speechthat clearly favors privacy. The decision is in keeping with Europe's tradition of giving equal weight to privacy and free speech rights. In the United States, however, priority is generally given to free speechrights, and so it is probably unlikely that a version of the "right to be forgotten" will be codified in U.S.law.Google agreed to comply with the European Court's ruling but acknowledged the difficulties withimplementation. Within a few months after the ruling, Google had received over 100,000 requests forthe removal of links to "irrelevant or "unnecessary information." The EU's order, however, applied onlyto European domains such as Google.fr or Google.co.uk-not to Google.com itself. Some privacy rightsadvocates claim that this doesn't go far enough and that the ruling should apply globally in order tofully protect the data rights of European citizens. There are other questions about how extensively toapply European privacy rules, such as whether or not publishers should be allowed to appeal Google'sdecision to remove links to their content.

The case in question involves Mr. H, a well-known shopkeeper and café owner, who was falsely accused…

Answered: has to be more than 200 words Has…

Engineering

Computer Engineering

has to be more than 200 words Has Google gone far enough to protect this right from being deprived?

Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach (7th Edition)

7th Edition

ISBN:9780133594140

Author:James Kurose, Keith Ross

Publisher:James Kurose, Keith Ross

Chapter1: Computer Networks And The Internet

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem R1RQ: What is the difference between a host and an end system? List several different types of end...

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

As a direct result of this, the use of the Internet has developed into an essential tool for exercising one's right to freedom of expression. Hate speech is widely disseminated via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, which are abused by a large number of individuals and even groups. Should there be no limits placed on people's ability to express themselves freely on the internet? Where should the line be drawn when it comes to allowing hostile remarks on social media platforms?
A luxury is something that is experienced as a pleasure rather than a necessity. Globally, most people consider food, shelter, and water necessities. Many Americans would undoubtedly add indoor plumbing and electricity to that list. Internet access is increasingly seen as a need rather than a luxury. But is it really a necessary for survival? So, what happens to folks who don't have access to or don't use the internet? Could the perception of Internet access as a need or a luxury affect the growth of e-commerce?
What effect did the abuse of the internet and computers have on the right to privacy? What efforts have the government taken, both at home and abroad, to put an end to these abuses?
Is a privacy crisis looming as a result of the convergence of the digital and real worlds enabled by smart technologies?
With the advent of the Internet, speech has become a fundamental tool for the practice of freedom of expression. Many individuals and even groups use social media like Facebook and Twitter to promote hate speech. Are there no limits to freedom of expression on the internet? Social networks should implement measures to limit hate speech.
Many people believe that the digital world is separated between 'haves' and 'have nots' — those who have access to and can use a computer and the Internet, and others who do not. Some argue that this has major ethical consequences and that there is a moral need to address the discrepancy; the 'have nots' may feel discriminated against or'socially excluded,' and are missing out on numerous life possibilities. Do you believe that everyone, regardless of location, need, competency, or financial ability, should have access to computers and the Internet? If this is the case, who should supply the services and education, and who should foot the bill? If not, please explain why not everyone need access to the internet
Today's society places a high value on privacy, yet it is also divided on the issue. Do you think there is anything further that can be done to preserve internet privacy? As an example, do you believe that laws are sufficient?
Freedom of expression requires the Internet today. Thus, many people and organisations now disseminate hatred on internet forums and messaging platforms. So why? Can social media eradicate hate speech?
Even though privacy is highly valued in today's culture, there are conflicting opinions on it. Do you believe that there is still more that can be done to protect online privacy? Do you, for instance, think that laws are adequate?
What effect has the abuse of the internet and computers had on the right to privacy? What domestic and international measures were done by authorities to halt these abuses?
Many people believe that the Internet and computers have created a digital divide between the haves and have-nots of society. Some argue that this has serious moral repercussions and that the gap has to be closed since those on the bottom are being unfairly treated and may feel discriminated against or socially ostracized as a result. Do you believe that everyone, irrespective of where they live, their financial situation, their level of education, or their ability to use computers, should have access to the Internet? Who should provide aid and education and who should foot the bill? Why isn't Internet access mandatory for everyone?
Even though privacy is highly valued in today's culture, there are conflicting opinions on it. Do you believe that there is still more that can be done to protect online privacy? Do you, for instance, think that laws are adequate?