'Privacy' The Latest Tool Being Used For Censorship

from the right-to-be-forgotten dept

In the last few months, we've written a few times about the EU's bizzare fascination with a "right to be forgotten," which is a bizarre attempt to create laws that would let individuals demand that anything they don't like about themselves be deleted from the internet. The argument supporting this is always that it's a form of a "privacy" right, but that's not true. A right to privacy is about keeping your private info private. This "right to be forgotten" is usually about trying to block public info. However, the EU is still pushing forward with this idea, apparently not realizing how disastrous it would actually be in practice. Supporters have mocked concerns about free speech, claiming that we Americans "fetishize" free speech.

But this goes beyond just a basic free speech claim or a privacy claim. This is really about censorship. Berin Szoka points us to a great analysis by Peter Fleischer about how a "right to be forgotten" is really about censorship. Fleischer is Chief Privacy Counsel for Google, but wrote this on his personal blog, rather than as an official Google position.
More and more, privacy is being used to justify censorship. In a sense, privacy depends on keeping some things private, in other words, hidden, restricted, or deleted. And in a world where ever more content is coming online, and where ever more content is find-able and share-able, it's also natural that the privacy counter-movement is gathering strength. Privacy is the new black in censorship fashions. It used to be that people would invoke libel or defamation to justify censorship about things that hurt their reputations. But invoking libel or defamation requires that the speech not be true. Privacy is far more elastic, because privacy claims can be made on speech that is true.

Privacy as a justification for censorship now crops up in several different, but related, debates: le droit a l'oubli, the idea that content (especially user-generated content on social networking services) should auto-expire, the idea that data collection by companies should not be retained for longer than necessary, the idea that computers should be programmed to "forget" just like the human brain. All these are movements to censor content in the name of privacy. If there weren't serious issues on both sides of the debate, we wouldn't even be talking about this.
The whole thing is a good read. He breaks down the component issues, to get around the attempts by some to conflate very different issues to support a right to be forgotten.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, europe, privacy, right to be forgotten

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    BBT, 11 Mar 2011 @ 12:56pm

    "The argument supporting this is always that it's a form of a "privacy" right, but that's not true. A right to privacy is about keeping your private info private."

    Are you sure? Let's imagine a hypothetical world where legislation has been passed that installs millions of cameras, recording everything that ever happens in a public area. All locations that are open to the public are required to install these cameras (perhaps they're reimbursed for the costs). Microphones are everywhere public, too.

    Would such legislation not be a gross violation of privacy? Even though the only things that would be recorded are "public"?

    As technology continues to makes surveillance devices cheaper, and recording quality better, and data storage cheaper...this type of issue will become more common. The courts have relied on the faulty premise that there is no right to privacy for things done "in public". Technology is on a steady march to making constant surveillance of everything done "in public" an economically viable idea. When it happens, we'll see just how faulty that premise is.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.