South Korea Embraces Ridiculous Right To Be Forgotten As Well

from the forget-you dept

It's spreading! Now that the right to be forgotten is in full swing (and likely expanding) in Europe, it appears other parts of the world are jumping in as well. The latest? South Korea, whose governmental "media monitoring agency" has said it will release guidelines for people who wish to remove information from the internet:
Under the administrative guidelines to be proposed by the Korea Communications Commission, Web users will be able to demand that Web portals remove personal information that they do not want online.

“We have studied the rights to be forgotten for more than a year through a group composed of legal, academic and industry experts,” an official from the media watchdog said. “We plan to introduce the guidelines in the first half of the year.”
Basically, South Korea is figuring out just how much censorship of truthful and legal information it will allow -- which is kind of crazy when you think about it. Apparently, there are still some big decisions to be made, though:
The media watchdog said it will map out the guidelines in a loose, self-regulated form, given ongoing controversy over censorship and the public’s right to know.

One sticking point is whether to give the right to ask for deletion only to those who write the posts in question. Also, it has yet to be decided whether the guidelines will only apply to large search engines or even include smaller Web platforms. The communications regulator is also mulling over whether to set up a separate body to determine what data can be removed.
I'm still in a position where I don't understand this at all. If the information is somehow false or "illegal" I can understand the desire to remove it. But I have a lot more trouble understanding the ability to remove truthful and legal information just because someone doesn't like it. This kind of system will always be abused to just censor perfectly reasonable and often useful information, just because it exposes something someone doesn't like. It's disappointing that South Korea appears to be embracing such a head in the sand approach to information.

Filed Under: free speech, right to be forgotten, south korea


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 11:33am

    That's a feature, not a bug

    But I have a lot more trouble understanding the ability to remove truthful and legal information just because someone doesn't like it. This kind of system will always be abused to just censor perfectly reasonable and often useful information, just because it exposes something someone doesn't like.

    Why would those in positions of power, whether that be wealth, political or otherwise, want the ability to remove information regarding them even if it's true?

    Hmm, lemme think about that for a bit, I'm sure a possible reason will come to me eventually...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 12:46pm

    It's more like a Right to Censor.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 12:47pm

    You're going to be sorry when President Trump makes you take this post down.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      mcinsand, 29 Feb 2016 @ 1:30pm

      In a related note...

      I have realized that, no matter what Mexico's president says now, I predict that they will be eager to build and pay for a wall if Trump becomes president. They have enough problems without hordes of refugees storming in from the north.

      (I'm not worried, though, since I know how a shovel works.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 12:47pm

    Google opened the door to this...

    by doing it for the EU. Expect governments all over the world to try to get their foot in now too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Groaker (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 1:08pm

    Of course the US could always forget South Korea altogether.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 2:36pm

    As a European let me explain to you about the reasoning about this "right to be forgotten":

    It's simple, you fuck up, badly, you may even be imprisoned and/or fined for your crimes. You do your time and when you come out you realize that you are effectively still being punished.

    Around here we don't do the American prison system, we actually want to give people a second chance. It's trivial to see cases where this continued punishment is grossly unfair just as you can pick cases where it's grossly abused.

    An alternative to solve the same problem could be to make it easy for such people to change their name. Presto, no more bad google juju without ruining freedom of speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 2:53pm

      Re:

      If you Europeans truly gave people a second chance, then there would be no need of a "right" to be forgotten.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 7:39pm

      Re:

      … we actually want to give people a second chance.
      Joe Stalin deserves a second chance, too. He can improve his photoshop skills this time.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      MrTroy (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 11:24pm

      Re:

      You do your time and when you come out you realize that you are effectively still being punished.

      ... we actually want to give people a second chance.


      I agree with the first AC that responded to you. If you (plural) really did want to give people a second chance, then those people wouldn't realise that they're still being punished... because they wouldn't be.

      If the only way that you will give those people a second chance is if you don't know and can't find out about their history... then you're not really proposing what you think you're proposing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 1 Mar 2016 @ 6:12am

      Re:

      As the subject of a troll campaign I can sympathise with the desire to get inaccurate or out of date information removed, but the only way to get it down so that it stays down is to get it down at source.

      If the story has been recorded in the papers, etc., take the advice provided here: How To Resurrect Your Reputation: 5 Steps To Success. I'm in the "make lemonade" phase because I don't want to start all over again.

      Potential employers, etc., don't judge you by the search results but by how you deal with them. I'm creating more relevant results by creating more internet footprints. How am I doing? It's either working or it's not.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tom Mink (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 2:40pm

    In other words

    The right to be forgotten imposes the much more sinister sounding obligation to forget. We've always been at war with Eastasia

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      tqk (profile), 29 Feb 2016 @ 3:29pm

      Re: In other words

      The right to be forgotten imposes the much more sinister sounding obligation to forget.

      Even worse, it imposes on inconvenient facts the obligation to never have existed. You get to re-write history. The facts don't get to speak for themselves. They can continue to hide in yet undiscovered archives and Samizdat, that's all.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 2:47pm

    cry babies being cry babies
    "boo hoo somebody said something i dont like"
    *censor censor censor*

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Feb 2016 @ 4:55pm

    Not Sayin' It's Obvious

    Politicians everywhere are eager to pass legislation that buries previous misdeeds...

    ...Huh, imagine that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    jilocasin (profile), 1 Mar 2016 @ 5:22am

    Right idea wrong target

    I think all of this right to be forgotten business might be a good idea, it's just directed at the wrong targets.

    Here in the US we shouldn't be left out. We should have a right to be forgotten too.

    Just in our case it's the government, not Google or Facebook, that should be required to expunge truthful data about us that they should never have acquired in the first place.

    The difficult part will be knowing all the government agencies we would need to send our requests too; NSA, CIA, ICE, Homeland Security.... IRS.

    You don't think the government would consent to having a single agency handle all of our requests to be forgotten.... do you?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 1 Mar 2016 @ 6:53am

      Re: Right idea wrong target

      It appears as though the US congress has already forgotten about a majority of its citizens.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    BeldansFire (profile), 1 Mar 2016 @ 6:15am

    Time Traveling Stalin

    Hmm commit genocide and be able to expunge all records of it from the internet... Then do it all again. Sounds like the plot of a dumb movie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 1 Mar 2016 @ 8:06am

    Google is not the internet

    Just a point of correction:
    South Korea, whose governmental "media monitoring agency" has said it will release guidelines for people who wish to remove information from the internet:
    But the Right To Be Forgotten laws don't remove information from the internet: it removes information from Google's indexing, assuming Google approves the request. The information is still out there on the original publisher's site and anyone can still use Bing or any other search engine to find the information. Heck, they could even go to a newspaper's website and search for the information.
    Could you please be more precise with your wording so people don't confuse Google with the rest of the internet.

    And to the poster who said people should be given a second chance: I completely agree.
    But the RTBF laws only stop the casual person using Google- they don't affect law enforcement. This means if someone really wants a second chance, they better hope their potential employer doesn't do a criminal background check.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    KS Park, 17 Sep 2016 @ 8:13pm

    Korea's right to be forgotten is not really what it is called.

    The KCC “Guidelines on the Right to Request Access Restrictions on Personal Internet Postings” will not apply the third party contents.[73] To the extent that the right to be forgotten concerns a data subject's right to limit the searchability of third party postings about him/her, the Guideline harldly constitutes a right to be forgotten.[74] Also, as to the right to withdraw one's own posting, critics have noted that people have been able to delete their own postings before the Guideline as long as they have retained their login credentials, and that people who have misplaced their login credentials were permitted to retrieve or receive new ones.[75] The only services significantly affected by the Guideline are Wiki-type services where people's contributions make logical sense only in response to or in conjunction with one another's conributions and therefore the postings are made permanent part of the mass-created content, but KCC made sure that the Guideline applies to these services only when the posting identifies the authors.[76]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    KS Park, 17 Sep 2016 @ 8:13pm

    Korea's right to be forgotten is not really what it is called.

    The KCC “Guidelines on the Right to Request Access Restrictions on Personal Internet Postings” will not apply the third party contents.[73] To the extent that the right to be forgotten concerns a data subject's right to limit the searchability of third party postings about him/her, the Guideline harldly constitutes a right to be forgotten.[74] Also, as to the right to withdraw one's own posting, critics have noted that people have been able to delete their own postings before the Guideline as long as they have retained their login credentials, and that people who have misplaced their login credentials were permitted to retrieve or receive new ones.[75] The only services significantly affected by the Guideline are Wiki-type services where people's contributions make logical sense only in response to or in conjunction with one another's conributions and therefore the postings are made permanent part of the mass-created content, but KCC made sure that the Guideline applies to these services only when the posting identifies the authors.[76]

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


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.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

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



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
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
Close

Email This

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