We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip main navigation

How privacy needs can change over time

Privacy needs change over time
© Newcastle University
Everyday, we share information online and most of us seem happy to do so. Over time, our privacy preferences may change.
While sharing in the moment, we often cannot imagine how and whether sharing can later come to haunt us. In addition, information stored online can be taken out of context. While the limits of human memory mean that information we share in the real world may be forgotten, online data storage does not allow us to forget our shared information.

The right to be forgotten

A ruling from the European Union’s highest court allows European citizens to request search engines to take down links to personal information that they feel link to outdated or irrelevant information about themselves. Search engines must comply if the information is deemed to be ‘inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant’. This recent step is important in efforts to protect individual privacy rights.
This right was enshrined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). GDPR (EU) 2016/679 – this is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union. It addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and came into force in May 2018. The right to be forgotten falls under article 17 – Right to erasure.
As a result, Google for example will aim to block search results across all of its domains when a search takes place within Europe, in an extension of how it implements the ‘right to be forgotten’ ruling.
However, is it right to hide history? Some might argue that it is not quite right to remove information regarding an event that happened, as removing information regarding the event does not mean the event never happened. History is an important part of our culture and hiding it only makes it harder for future historians to piece together. What are your views on this?
An example reported in a Google Transparency Report:
An individual who was convicted of a serious crime in the last five years but whose conviction was quashed on appeal asked us to remove an article about the incident. We removed the page from search results for the individual’s name.
  • Do you agree with Google’s decision?
  • Where would you draw the line?
  • What needs to be removed from search engine results?
  • Should we also be able to request the original material is removed by the publisher?
© Newcastle University
This article is from the free online

Cyber Security: Safety at Home, Online, in Life

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Our purpose is to transform access to education.

We offer a diverse selection of courses from leading universities and cultural institutions from around the world. These are delivered one step at a time, and are accessible on mobile, tablet and desktop, so you can fit learning around your life.

We believe learning should be an enjoyable, social experience, so our courses offer the opportunity to discuss what you’re learning with others as you go, helping you make fresh discoveries and form new ideas.
You can unlock new opportunities with unlimited access to hundreds of online short courses for a year by subscribing to our Unlimited package. Build your knowledge with top universities and organisations.

Learn more about how FutureLearn is transforming access to education