Embedded Files
Welcome to A-level ICT
Individuals can now apply to have links to content about them removed from search engines.
There are many reasons both positive and negative why individuals might want these links removed and there may be many concerns individuals or society might have about this issue.
FOR
FOR
If someone has been wrongly accused of a crime and found not guilty, they still have to live with the stigma and search results pointing to original crime is just a reminder.
Should minor crimes committed as a juvenile haunt you for ever? / Should silly photos taken when young stop you getting a job/ do employers have the right to stop you doing things
Financial problems (declared bankrupt) which you have overcome.
AGAINST
AGAINST
Should a politician be able to erase details from his past
Professional aiming to hide bad reviews.
Society might want a true picture of the individual
WHY HAVE LINKS REMOVED?
WHY HAVE LINKS REMOVED?
Length of time information has been there- may not be relevant
Not wanting others to see private data/ information posted without permission / invasion of privacy if qualified
Job prospects may be affected
Accuracy of published information- could be telling lies/social impact
Privacy Issues :- could lead to cyber bullying / stalking / grooming/identity theft
May get bad reviews/criminal case history so want it removed to disguise facts.
CONCERNS
CONCERNS
Worldwide so can get at it from other websites in different countries
Might not remove all links to it and still sits on server
How long does it take /how do you get it removed
Any costs involved
Censorship- companies/individuals may try to suppress/restrict access to information public has right to know/ freedom of information
GENERAL POINTS
GENERAL POINTS
Ruling seen as a right to be forgotten - Came about because an individual took it to law to remove an 18 year old story about having his home repossessed due to financial difficulties. He claimed that the search results violated his privacy
EU citizens can ask for links to be removed if the content it directs people to is deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer valid”.
Content not deleted from the website, just the link to it, making it harder to find.
Case originally dismissed as requesting search engine providers to supress legitimate and legal information that has entered the public domain as an interference of freedom of expression
Start of censorship in Europe. “Same as going into a library and pulping books”.
Initial flood of requests to have links removed
Don’t have to remove link if in public interest (1), but who decides what is public interest? (1)
Whole system tied up in red tape.
Publicising address and robberies occurring
Page updated
Report abuse