ENEMY OF THE STATE PART THREE: WHAT’S GOOGLE GOT TO DO WITH IT?

In regard to two extremes – forgetting everything and remembering everything – it is safe to say that the NSA is on the side of the spectrum that recalls all. In a sense, the NSA never forgets: details of and connections between the past and present are constantly scrutinized and analyzed by NSA officials as a means for detecting suspicious activities that threaten the safety of U.S. citizens. So what, then, falls on the opposite side of this spectrum? As of a recent court hearing, it seems as though Google would be on the opposite end in that it is an entity that now has the capability to forget all – in Europe, at least. In a press release by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it discusses the court’s decision that allows people to request that search engine’s disallow certain links to show up when their name is searched. For example, it says in the document, “An internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties…Thus, if, following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, the list of results displays a link to a web page which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results.” This essentially grants people with the right to be forgotten, or to have whatever information they should like removed at will. Though this may have a few positive attributes, it also has several negative. For example, it could eliminate the important aspect of consequence from a world so in need of its governing powers. Consequences are what ultimately prevent people from choosing to do the wrong thing – and when people do choose the wrong thing, consequences prevent people from making those choices again. However, in a world where all the wrongdoers and criminals can have the negative aftermath of their actions in their hands and are able to erase information regarding their wrongdoings from the Internet that allows them to break free of the consequences of their actions. To put this into the context of everyday life, imagine what would happen if one of these wrongdoers was running for office. The average American does not have the time to sift through the archives when researching each candidate for office, and most people think a quick Google check of the person will suffice. What if one campaigner had had a criminal record, but asked for it to be removed from Google search results? Disaster and further governmental turmoil could result. These two extremes – the all-remembering NSA and the all-forgetting Google – bring up several important questions. How do both of these methods affect the exercising of the right of free speech? According to the Stanford Law Review, many have belittled the effects of the recent allowance of the right to be forgotten’s effect on free speech while in reality, it has an enormous and negative effect on free speech. For example, in the review, they say, ““…the European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights, and Citizenship, Viviane Reding, announced the European Commission’s proposal to create a sweeping new privacy right—the ‘right to be forgotten’… Although Reding depicted the new right as a modest expansion of existing data privacy rights, in fact it represents the biggest threat to free speech on the Internet in the coming decade.” They go on to further express the harmful effects of this new concept on free speech, saying, “Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could precipitate a dramatic clash between European and American conceptions of the proper balance between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet.” Also, does either of these methods work, or is there a happy medium that must be reached for the sake of the United States and national security? Who should make that decision? That is something that only time shall serve to tell.