The Internet does not forget

TheEuropean Court of Justice's ruling on Tuesday (13.05.2014) was unexpected. First, it reverses the previous position of ECJ Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen, who had argued that the EU data protection directive from 1995 did not include a general "right to be forgotten." (If you google Jääskinen’s name today last year’s report still ranks high in search results). Second, the ruling surprised many because it forces Internet giant Google to actually listen to requests from individual users to delete content. Up to now, the data colossus had been able to rest, assured on the neutrality of its algorithm. That no longer seems to be the case.

However, gloating over the ECJ's wrapping of Google’s knuckles is not right. That’s simply punishing the bearer of bad news – or in other words, the provider of search results. After all, the original source behind the plaintiff's case – a newspaper article from 1998 – continues to exist on the Internet. And so the reputed "right to forget" remains a rather tenuous matter.

But there's no mistaking it: the ruling is not a blank check and certainly not a digital "morning after pill." It's not intended to be an eraser for the user to delete uncomfortable content retroactively. That would be a step in the wrong direction. It's still the responsibility of the user to carefully consider what he or she publishes on the Internet. "I can have Google delete it afterwards" must not become the new motto each time an embarrassing selfie goes online. The Internet does not forget – not even after this ruling. It will still be possible to find undesirable content about oneself on the Internet, for example on social media platforms.

And that's a good thing. The alternative is not an option: Imagine if politicians requested Google delete particular search results because they were detrimental to an election campaign. With a nod in this direction, the ECJ ruling requires the consideration of "the role of the person in public life" and recognizes "an overriding interest of the general public in access to information" as criteria for non-removal of search results. However, it is possible that courts in the near future may have to determine whether dyed hair or a celebrity's attractive companion is something the general public has a right to know.

In this respect, the current judgment is at best the starting point for a debate. A debate over what we publish on the Internet and what happens with our data. And who has control over that information and who earns money with it. It is a reminder that our legal practice continually lags behind reality.