1
TEACHING NOTE:
Google and the Right to be Forgotten
1
This case illustrates the following themes and concepts discussed in the chapters listed:
Theme/Concept Chapter
Organizational ethics, information technology ethics 6
Case Synopsis:
In July 2010, the Spanish Data Protection Agency ordered Google Spain and Google Inc.
to remove the personal data of Mario Costeja Gonzalez from its index and preclude
further access to it, ushering in the right to be forgotten in Europe. This right was not
only in contrast to the freedom of speech in the U.S. but of Google’s own mission.
2
Discussion Questions & Answers
1. Do you believe an individual should have the right to be forgotten, that is, to
remove information about themselves from the Internet? If so, should this right
be limited, and if so, how?
TEACHING TIP: DEFINING TERMS
The instructor may wish to begin the discussion by asking students to define the right to
illustrated below.
Yes, individuals should have the right
to be forgotten:
No, individuals should not have the
right to be forgotten:
• Personal data is personal and
individuals should be able to
control their own data
• Personal information can be
wrong or outdated, so
individuals should have the
opportunity to change or delete
it
without the individual’s
knowledge or consent
• Personal information is most
often entered by the person
themselves, voluntarily
• People should be more careful
about what they share so that
removal is unnecessary; it is an
individual’s own fault if he or
she posts incorrect or
embarrassing information
right to information
• The right to be forgotten
implies that someone—a
should be removed or not.
This would give the
government, or Google, too
much power.
3
• A right to privacy would be
very difficult to enforce
because of the global nature of
the Internet
Instructor prompt: Are there circumstances under which the right to be forgotten
should be limited? If so, what are these circumstances?
2. How does public policy with respect to individual privacy differ in the United
States and Europe, and what explains these differences?
3. In what ways has technology made it more difficult for individuals to protect
their privacy?
5
• Google has a policy of
transparency
• Google should follow the law
where laws required this
is effective in finding
information
• Google is a private company;
it not appropriate for a private
company to be the judge of
what information should be
removed, especially without a
process of appeal for those
who work is suppressed
If so, what criteria should Google use in modifying search requests?
Students may mention a number of criteria, drawing on their own ideas and those
offered in the advisory council. These include:
• The data subject’s role in public life. Did the individuals have a clear role in
public life (CEOs, politicians, sports stars)?
• The type of information involved. Information that would normally be
normally weigh against delisting. Google removed content that glorified the
Nazi party, illegal in Germany, and content that insulted religion (e.g. illegal
in India).
• The source of the information. The advisory report suggested that journalistic
writing or government publications would normally not be delisted. Google
frequently removed information for legal reasons – either valid notification
6
Are there limits to the resources the company should be expected expend to
comply with such requests?
5. If you were a Google executive, how would you balance the privacy rights of the
individual with the public’s interest to know and the right to distribute
information?
7
Epilogue:
In the United States: In March 2015, President Barak Obama issued an
Administration Discussion Draft called the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act
of 2015. Its purpose was to establish baseline protections for individual privacy in
In Europe: In the wake of the 2014 decision by the European Court of Justice,
Google has maintained that it does not believe the French regulator has the
had resulted in a delisting. Requests involving “private or personal information”
were much more likely to be result in a delisting than were requests classified by
the company as “serious crime,” “public figure,” “political,” or “child
protection.”
3