Weekly Takeaway, Week Two

To address growing concern about information permanency on the web the European Union has enacted a "right to be forgotten".  This law, as played out in recent court settings, gives individuals expanded but still limited power to control what information about them is accessible via the web.

• Citizens can petition to have links from search engines like google removed, this means that the information is still kept by the original custodian, but a general search query of a person's name will not generate a link to the information on the custodians server.
• The law, as it has evolved thus far, is limited to personal information that is "inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive".  This is the standard that a court will use to settle any disputes.
• Petitions to have search results deleted are assessed on a case by case basis weighing the interests of the public to the information with the interest of the individual who is petitioning  to limit public access to the information.
• Search engines themselves, like google, are required to make the assessments and balance the interests under the supervision of independant national data protection authorities.
• In the event of a dispute between site operators and individuals the courts will have the final say whether (1) the information meets the standard and (2) The site operators properly balanced the interest of the individual in limiting access to the information with the interest of the public in have the information available.

While the United States of American has yet to adopt a "right to forget" law, the notion of balancing interests in information is not foreign to us.  Some examples are:

• Juvenile Records, these records are generally not accessible to the public and cannot be used against an individual except in very rare circumstances. 
• Sex offender registries
• White collar criminal registries

The discussion of protections for anonymous speech surges once again as the internet is filled with posts, tweets, likes, shares, and comments that range from politically, socially, and culturally thought provoking to devious, offensive, and criminal.  

The social value of anonymous speech has kept it protected under the first amendment.  There are many examples of anonymous speech both historically and currently that support protecting anonymous speech.  Some examples are:

• The Federalist Papers that were written under a pseudonym
• The Watergate Scandal being uncovered by an anonymous person called "deep throat"
• The many individuals who stand up for freedom in countries under repressive governmental control yet cannot do so using their real names.

These are contrasted by actors such as "internet trolls" who anonymously post images and words with the intent to harm, offend, and commit criminal acts while cowering behind an anonymous user name. 

Courts have ordered that some anonymous users be identified when the gravity of the offense they have committed merits court action, however these situations are limited because (1) it is not always possible to identify a person from computer tracking information, (2) courts are hesitant to order a website operator to disclose such information, and (3) individuals must try to de-identify the perpetrator using all other reasonable means before the court will act.