The Right to Erasure debate
The Right to Erasure is a key part of GDPR and strikes a balance between personal privacy and the public’s right to know. This has however led to fierce debates, as privacy protection may be seen to clash with freedom of speech and information. In this post, you’ll gain a high-level overview of the Right to Erasure ‘debate’. You'll also see what measures are in place to uphold certain freedoms while protecting your privacy.
What is the Right to Erasure?
The Right to be Erasure gives you the legal entitlement to request outdated and incorrect information be removed from Google. It's also known as the Right to be Forgotten. If negative articles about you linger online, this right gives you the chance to make a fresh start. Click here to read more about the Right to Erasure and removing articles from Google.
Arguments for the Right to Erasure.
Protecting your reputation
The Right of Erasure's main purpose is to protect your privacy and reputation. Your past mistakes and out-of-date information about you online is available for all to see with a simple search of your name. This Right to Erasure allows you to request this information be removed, meaning you’re free from the burden of your past mistakes.
Enhancing data protection and control
The Right to Erasure is one of the privacy and data protection rights guaranteed by GDPR. Click here to read more about GDPR. It supports the idea that personal data shouldn’t be kept for longer than necessary and that you should control how your personal data is handled.
Reducing unfair consequences
Negative content about you online can hinder employment and housing opportunities, among others. By giving you the right to request links be deleted, the Right to Erasure means your past errors no longer affect your current-day prospects.
Promoting fresh starts
Having a criminal past can mean even a spent conviction feels like a lifelong sentence. Luckily the Right to Erasure can help you delist links from Google about your conviction. This means people won’t find out about your conviction when they search your name online, giving you the fresh start you deserve. Read more here about the Right to be Forgotten and criminal convictions.
Concerns about the Right to Erasure
Here is a summary of some of the main arguments against the Right of Erasure.
Transparency and access to information
Critics claim the Right to Erasure can undermine information access and transparency. This is a key aspect of democratic society as the public has a right to know about those in public or influential positions.
Preserving freedom of speech
Some observers feel that the Right to Erasure can stifle free speech. Journalists and individuals may hesitate to share information or opinions if they feel that they’ll be forced to retract or erase them.
Maintaining records
The Right to Erasure may promote the idea of deleting records according to critics. In extreme cases, this could be seen as a form of censorship. Deleting information may lead to a distorted or incomplete picture of events, and is also open to abuse.
Reduced accountability
The Right to Erasure and privacy laws may conflict with individual accountability. Deleting information could be regarded as covering up your past mistakes. For example, a prospective employer should have the right to know if a potential employee has a serious criminal conviction.
Addressing concerns around the Right to Erasure
The arguments against the Right to Erasure are legitimate concerns in a free, open and democratic society. Given this, by law, there are many situations in which it cannot be applied, these include:
Certain criminal offences
The Right to Erasure doesn’t always apply to unspent criminal convictions (where privacy rights are reduced), nor does it apply to the most serious of crimes. Examples where it won’t apply and where the public’s right to know will outweigh privacy rights, include serious violent, sexual or terrorism offences.
Official records
Public records, such as those held by Companies House, cannot usually be removed from the internet or public domain using the Right to Erasure.
Public figures
The Right to Erasure does not usually apply to those who have intentionally entered the public eye in the last 10 years. This includes politicians, religious leaders, and journalists.
Legitimate opinions
Legitimate opinions about a business or individual’s personal or business conduct are not usually covered by the Right to Erasure. Freedom of speech and the right to express your reasonably held opinion will usually outweigh the business owners’ privacy rights.
Check out our page about who cannot apply to see a more detailed guide of when you may not be able to successfully claim your Right to Erasure.
The Right to Erasure around the world
While Right to Erasure, strictly speaking, only exists in the UK and EU as part of GDPR, the concept is recognised in many other countries and territories around the world. Privacy laws across Europe are among the world’s strictest and can often prioritise privacy over access to information and a declining public interest.
Across the pond, things are a bit different. In the US, there is no federal equivalent of the Right to Erasure and data privacy often conflicts with First Amendment rights. This is seen to prioritise freedom of speech and information over the right to delete data. Privacy protections are becoming more defined in Canada, though.
Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 was recently amended to include erasure rights like those in GDPR. Over in Asia, countries like Japan and China are adopting stricter data privacy laws, as are countries in Africa and Latin America. Notably, Brazil and South Africa have made significant strides in data protections laws.
Internet Erasure and the Right to Erasure
The need to balance the Right to Erasure with freedom of information and expression means exercising this right can be tricky. If you want to remove reputation-damaging content from the internet, you’re likely to come up against lots of hurdles.
That’s where Internet Erasure comes in. Our caseworkers understand the correct legal balances of this complex law. In fact, they’ve been able to remove 40,000+ articles for 850+ clients over the years. Our ‘Excellent’ rating and 200+ positive reviews on Trustpilot speak for themselves. If you need a clean slate, contact us today.
