Introduction
Business technology uses data, engineering, and science for organizational and financial objectives in the business world. The concept of change and how it might impact business and society is the fundamental component of technology. Globally, technology has affected the dynamics of business operations. Many companies have significantly benefited from the development of systems made possible by technology, particularly when it comes to effectively managing employee-employer relationships and accessing the personal information of stakeholders. The information technology industry has utilized these tools through business resource planning and customer relationship management on Google platforms. However, there are patent rights regarding the dissemination of data in the internet platforms, data protection and regulation in the search engines to protect personal and organizational data. This paper will address the right to be forgotten and the right to privacy in technology, differences in public policy in the U.S. and Europe concerning technology, the phenomenon of the quantified Self, the responsibility to protect individual privacy and the intermediary concept by google, among other issues.
The concept of the right to be forgotten and the right to privacy
The right to be forgotten is the act of the government to regulate technology and step in to protect the personal information of its people. Hence, the right to be forgotten is the activity of asking to delete some personal data an individual feels they are damaging or violates their rights (Clark, 2015, p. 483). Accordingly, the government protects the company’s ideas through patent rights, acts, patent rights and trademarks. The idea behind the “right to be forgotten” is that personal information on a person kept by a company or service provider must be deleted at the person’s request. It is a legal privilege provided by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which safeguards the personal information of European natives.
Some countries within the European Union have enacted stricter laws than the EU. for instance, Spain passed a law regarding data protection through its constitution through the Data Protection Act. According to Clerk (2015, p. 486), the right to be forgotten is not universal; it is only sometimes applicable to countries outside the E.U., and there are some different situations in which a person may not be entitled to erase their data. As a result, the right to be forgotten ensures that, in addition to the ePrivacy Directive’s requirement that users can unsubscribe from newsletters, they can also ask the publisher to remove their name, email address, and any other personal information from their files. This option has also been used to delete specific categories of personal data from search engine outcomes. For instance, people have the right, subject to certain restrictions, to have their personally identifiable information removed from search results pages. In this case, search engines like Google must stop displaying links to pages containing that information.
The right to privacy ensures that personal data is protected from unlawful and arbitrary intrusions through laws enacted by the government through patent laws, trademarks and acts. The Human Rights Council declared in its resolution on promoting and protecting human rights on the internet “that the same rights that people have offline must also be respected online, particularly freedom of expression.
Differences in public policy concerning individual privacy between the U.S. and Europe, and what explains the differences.
Despite having positive international connections, there are also significant privacy legal discrepancies between Europe and the United nations. The general structure of the two systems is one of the critical contrasts between European privacy laws and United Nations privacy regulations. Together with its member states, the European Union had enacted laws addressing the right to be forgotten and the right to privacy by the year 1990 (Clark, 2015, p. 484). Therefore, it protected personal information and the freedom to impart and receive news. Interfering with search engines posed a threat to effectively enjoying these patent rights. Every member state of Europe is subject to the Data Protection Directive (DPD), which is a comprehensive system. European citizens are nevertheless protected by national solid data protection bodies, even though class action lawsuits may be more difficult to launch in Europe.
National organizations like the U.K. Information Commissioner’s Office and the French CNIL work assiduously to ensure that the privacy rights of its residents are protected. The European Commission’s Article 29 Working Party provides citizens with a wealth of regulatory information and assistance. U.S. citizens heavily rely on the Federal Trade Commission, a body with much greater enforcement authority than its European equivalents, to uphold their right to data protection. The Data Protection Directive is a globally recognized and comprehensive framework that is complied with by all market sectors and applies to all data types (Clark, 2015, p. 481). On the other hand, Americans adhere to various privacy rules that protect particular dangers and places. The courts in the U.S. have been taking different approaches regarding the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten. For instance, Americans possess the right to erase certain damaging information regarding their credit, including tax liens, judgements and late payments seven years from the delinquency date.
These rights are under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. Similarly, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act protects the privacy of financial information, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act regulates the collection of online data about children, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act establishes privacy regulations for health-related data. Additionally, U.S. states have passed their privacy legislation, such as the California Online Privacy Protection Act, which coexists with federal constitutional laws (Clark, 2015, p. 485). Most Americans will typically concede that because of cultural norms, residents in the E.U. enjoy a better amount of personal privacy. According to the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to privacy is seen by the Europe. as being of utmost importance. E.U. residents living in all 28 member states value their privacy rights highly, much as how U.S. gun regulations are the subject of intense national debate.
Should individuals have the right to be forgotten? If yes, should this right be limited, and how? If not, explain.
Individuals should have the right to be forgotten. In the modern world, every person’s data is stored online, and if it isn’t deleted, it can seriously harm the person’s private life. A fundamental human right known as “the right to be forgotten” states that everyone has a right to the necessary privacy for their sheltered existence (Clerk, 2015, p. 483). One should be in charge of any personal information that is unnecessary for the general public. The removal of data in today’s environment is a challenge. Someone who publishes something online, such as a picture, might be saved and reposted by another person. In some situations, it may be exceedingly challenging to control this and delete the image. In other words, it would be simple to delete a person’s data if it had yet to be republished, but the situation becomes more challenging if it has already been reposted. It should be taken off if it is identified who reposted. But in this digital age, finding the person can often be challenging.
The Right to be Forgotten is acknowledged in the Personal Data Protection rights of the E.U. and should be put into practice in all parts of the globe to safeguard the rights of internet users (Clerk, 2015, p. 483). In addition, case laws provide a narrow interpretation of this right and need more clarity. It’s important to dispel misconceptions and defend this freedom as a fundamental human right. The E.U. court recognized data protection with particular emphasis on Article 7 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was the first time the E.U. allowed data subjects to ask for the removal of erroneous and irrelevant personal information from search results. The act outlines several situations in which data subjects have the right to request the deletion of their data, including when such data was processed unlawfully or when they withdrew their consent. To ensure that these rights are adequately upheld, the constitution then imposes requirements on data controllers to respond appropriately to subject data requests. Inversely, the right to be forgotten is recognized by U.S. laws.
The Fair Credit Reporting act of 1970 gave people the right to erase certain information that they think is unnecessary regarding their credit. Nevertheless, such a right was not widely subscribed to in the U.S. since some Americans suggested that the right be forgotten and tasked people with failing others (Clark, 2015, p. 485). It is commonly believed that such a right would conflict with the first amendment’s guarantee of press freedom concerning speech. Therefore, as shown by the Martin case below, U.S. courts have thus far resisted the E.U.’s strategy. The U.S. Courts’ position may seem unchallengeable, but the direction they are going in may differ from what the public wants to see. In a recent 2020 survey, more than 75% of participants in the U.S. indicated that the capacity to prevent personal information from being accessible online is more significant than the ability to learn beneficial facts about others. This survey doesn’t expressly include the idea of the right to be forgotten, nor does it explain it to the respondents. Still, the preliminary results show how Americans feel about this right.
The “right to be forgotten” should be carefully limited since it must adhere to some minimal standards to be compatible with the freedom of expression in terms of method and content. In particular, the “right to be forgotten” should apply only to private individuals and be enforced only against search engines, not against content providers or hosting services (Clerk, 2015, p.481). Any safeguards should explicitly mention the freedom of expression as a fundamental right that must be balanced with any securities. Furthermore, impartial adjudicatory authorities or courts should be the only ones authorized to make judgements regarding “right to be forgotten” requests.
The phenomenon of the quantified Self
The quantified Self uses technology to collect and analyze data concerning their body and lifestyle that improves their health status. With the advent of technology and the development of statistics, people can record their behaviour and physical attributes. (The Quantified Self, 2022, p. 6). The quantified Self is a distinct cultural phenomenon that has gained significant popularity in modern culture. It involves using technology to gather and analyze massive amounts of personal data to enable a degree of sophisticated self-tracking that was previously unattainable. This method allows for tracking numerous aspects of a person’s life, including calorie consumption, weight, mood, blood sugar, and sleep. Self-tracking has expanded due to the rapid advancement of technology over the past ten years, making the procedure pleasurable and simple using smartwatches and cellphones with specialized apps. The scope of the Quantified Self has expanded far beyond its initial group of data-obsessed and technologically savvy adherents. Our lives are now much more efficient and convenient thanks to technology. Even in the world of business, everything can be done from gift-giving to purchasing without getting up from your cozy recliner. We all need to be mindful of the major hazards that come along with these advancements, though. Identity theft is one of these problems. People with the necessary technical know-how and competence might simply steal your identity as a result of businesses adopting digital and keeping important data on some type of network.
Moreover, the quantified Self is used in controlling and organizing populations into classes to segregate, encourage or punish them. Apple watches can collect a lot of data from millions of people daily while they monitor their health and take action from what they learn from digital devices (The Quantified Self, 2022, p.7). The idea of wearables is helping doctors in Europe and the U.S. to care for their patients effectively since they can look at and monitor these patients and their progress via wearables.
However, the concern is raised regarding the discrimination and privacy of the health data from the wearables in quantified Self. The health data sourced from these wearables vary in quality even though you can sort the valuable data from the bad. Hence, the U.S. and European governments are trying to regulate and protect consumers while maintaining an innovative and healthy digital ecosystem in the health sector.
Is Google simply an intermediary, as it claimed, or does Google have a responsibility to protect individual privacy and modify search results?
Section 21 of the information technology act of 2021 provides a broader definition of an intermediary. However, under the new Information Technology standards, Google cannot be classified as a Significant Social Media Intermediary or a Social Media Intermediary (Clark, 2015, p. 480). In general, there are two regimes at work. One is the requirement that an intermediary responds to complaints made to it following the grievance redressal mechanism, where the regime of adhering to takedown orders is issued by statutory courts or other authorities authorized to do so. In contrast, the intermediary is required to respond to complaints from individuals who have been wronged. However, Google is responsible for protecting the privacy of individual information from leakage to unauthorized hands. In technology, global spam volume and unwanted internet threats are prevalent in contemporary society. Phishing which is the act of hacking and stealing personal financial and identity data by using a fake email address is increasing nowadays. Therefore, Google has to ensure that personal data is protected from phishing and prevent the loss of privacy credentials.
References
Clark, C. (2015). “Google and the Right to be forgotten.” In Lawrence, A. & Weber, J.
(2020). Business & Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, and Public Policy, 16th Ed.
McGraw Hill, p. 480-489.
The Quantified Self. (2022). The Economist.
write