The decision that the EU court had made had been a very vague one which was that information the person is trying to get deleted has to be “inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant, excessive in relation to the purposes of processing.” In addition, if the information was considered to have played a significant role in the public, it cannot be deleted with this right to be forgotten.
In a NPR debate, the panelists debated over whether this right to be forgotten should be adopted in the USA. What became a problem there was that the distinction of what is an information that would be valuable left on the web for the public to see or would be better deleted since it effects the person’s life. The people against mentioned how it leaves a escape route for rich people with connections trying to erase their past mistakes. This makes the company Google much less accountable since the world cannot know how Google deletes that information. This leads to the problem that how this right might be considered as censorship.
In my personal opinion, I am more leaned on the side of for the motion. Recently, there are many articles about cyber bulling and cyber revenge when former friends or loved one uploads and spreads a personal image or episode that you the person wanted to keep private. With these exposures, many people are suffering from an irreversible damage by a certain information about themselves staying somewhere on the internet. Back in my home country Japan, we call such victims to have “Social death.” If this right to be forgotten existed, these victims would be able to start up a life again my relocating to a different community since that personal data will not follow you anymore. However, with the right to be forgotten, not only victims of data leakage but also criminals who wants to hide their criminal records for malicious reasons could delete their past as well. With incidents that criminals committing crime again showing up on the media so often, this will become a large issue to think about.