Tech

Argentina questions the right to oblivion

There are few legal doctrines that have given more talk in the technological world than the right to be forgotten. Approved in Europe in 2014 despite strong opposition from Google and its users, this right allows people to request removal of search results related to them. Remove it, and this is important to be precise, from the search results, since the linked elements will still be present in their respective origins.

The right to be forgotten also contemplates, of course, that people who wish to do so can contact these websites directly to request, based on this rule, the deletion of that information that they do not want to be kept on the network. However, in many cases this can be a very complex process, especially if the origin of the data is in a location where the right to be forgotten does not apply. This is the reason why the most common is to resort to Google.

And it is that If an online resource is no longer indexed by search engines, it loses practically all of its visibility.. However, there are those who consider that this type of action goes against transparency, that they can be used to hide potentially important information from people, and that search engines should collect all the content that is on the network, without it being possible. introduce limitations in this regard.

Argentina questions the right to oblivion

Europe is not the only geography in which the right to be forgotten is applied. In Latin America it is also present in Argentina, Chile and Mexico, although with different degrees of implementation. And the clearest example of this we have seen in Argentina, as we can read in Clarín, where the country’s Superior Court has agreed with Google in an appeal against Natalia Denegria celebrity in the country asking for results related to a scandal that took place in the 1990s to be removed.

This was quite an important case. faced two rights that are difficult to reconcile, information and privacya discussion that we already listened to exhaustion in the first years of the last decade, when the right to be forgotten began to take shape, and in which until now privacy seemed to have always won, but on this occasion it has faced a profound setback, because the judicial instance has opted for the argumentation of Google, a participant in the process.

The “Coppola Case” had “a great public interest in society whereby removing said content (from internet search engines) would affect freedom of expression, and would deprive society of having access to that information”, we can read in the sentence signed, unanimously, by four judges participating in the process. Could something similar happen in Europe? At the moment it does not seem likely, but we cannot rule it out either, especially now, with this precedent.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *