Because of the need to incorporate the experience acquired in the past into the current framework of business decisions, passed the Right to Be Forgotten in 2006 (Bennett, 2012). According to the principal postulates of the regulation, the fraudulent actions committed by companies as well as physical persons should not be mentioned after the guilty party pays its debt to the society (Dredge, 2014). The debate that the law has sparked is beyond impressive. Because the online environment exposes entrepreneurship to unique factors and creates prerequisites for discussing issues broadly, the fairness of keeping a consistent focus on the blunders made by companies might seem unreasonable.
We will write a custom Assessment on Right to Be Forgotten and Impact on Cyber-Trust specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The Right to Be Forgotten is bound to have a positive effect on a range of companies that compromised themselves in the past yet are willing to turn over a new leaf. It could be argued, though, that the introduction of the Right to Be Forgotten as the foundation for a fair evaluation of organizations and their current ethical and business practices might become premises for certain companies to continue their dishonest approach without being suspected.
The Right to Be Forgotten may also affect physical persons along with the legal ones. However, the changes that the legislation will promote in the business world are quite different from the way, in which physical persons will be affected. Presumably, the Right to Be Forgotten will allow for a soothing effect on the relentless memory of the global network. Consequently, the threat of bullying on the Internet can be prevented rather efficiently, and the possibility for people to redeem themselves after an online disgrace will emerge.
Seeing that online bullying has recently become a major issue in the global community, the promotion of the Right to Be Forgotten can be viewed as a crucial addition to the current set of regulations applied to the online environment. For specific users, the incorporation of the above tool in the general set of online regulations may become essential to facilitating their security and safety in the e-communication realm.
However, by silencing the issues that legal persons are responsible for, Google and the related organizations will expose users to the threat of becoming the victims of fraudulent actions committed by the firms in question. While some members of the global economy deserve to be forgotten for their blunders, others thrive on carrying out dishonest practices. Thus, failing to warn users about the possible dangers, online authorities should be held responsible for the damages that users may suffer (Floridi, 2014).
When addressing the subject matter, one should bring up the issues of cyber-trust and cyber-confidence. According to the existing definitions, cyber-trust is defined as the extent, to which online users trust organizations, whereas cyber-confidence is referred to as the extent, to which users consider themselves secure in the online environment (Fitzgerald, 2011). It is assumed that the pursuit of the policy of the Right to Be Forgotten will cause a rise in cyber-trust and at the same time trigger a drop in cyber-confidence.
Therefore, it is assumed that the practical implications of the adoption of the law are likely to cause a vast change in the cyber-trust and cyber-confidence rates worldwide. Also, there is a possibility that the lack of clarity concerning the intentions of organizations and individual users worldwide will be the most likely effect of the identified regulation. Although the intentions of Google and the companies involved in the promotion of the law are good, the threat of the misuse and abuse of the law worldwide is far too large to accept the regulation without any procrastination.
Scholars predict that the application of the specified rule to the environment of the global economy and business world is likely to raise a range of ethical dilemmas (Hsu & Marinucci, 2012). First and most obvious, the importance of learning on the mistakes made in the past needs to be brought up. Even some of the choices made by firms can be viewed as shameful in the future they will still contribute to a better understanding of business ethics and avoid similar instances later on.
However, by emphasizing the mistakes made by organizations, one may trigger shaming these companies and their further ostracism in the contemporary business world. Herein the primary dilemma lies. By following the law, one will sacrifice cyber-confidence of users for the sake of redeeming cyber-trust in specific organizations, and vice versa (Ausloos, 2012).
The issue under analysis is also quite complicated form the legal perspective. As Ausloos (2012) notices, “With the emergence of new technologies, the ‘default of forgetting’ has gradually shifted towards a ‘default of remembering” (Ausloos, 2012, p. 3). The above commentary suggests that the legal ramifications of the choices made by the state authorities are rather sensible from the perspective of social justice as well as the criminal one. The right not to be judged by one’s mistakes, therefore, is currently viewed as one of the irrefutable rights of both legal and physical persons (Hsu & Marinucci, 2012). The premises for cyber-confidence, therefore, can be created.
The legal implications of the above regulation, thus, can be considered as the extension of the basic human rights, in general, and the First Amendment, in particular (Cornell University Law School, 2016), in the online environment: “In endorsing the new right, Reding downplayed its effect on free speech, and press accounts have been similarly reassuring” (Rosen, 2012, par. 3). The above claim has a grain of truth in it, as the prohibition of mentioning information that is not in violation of the safety of the parties involved. Therefore, the cyber-confidence of specific users may drop.
Because of the lack of thought that the Right to Be Forgotten law demonstrates, both the legal ramifications of its usage and the application of the regulation to the environment of social networks, i.e., the area of personal interactions may be viewed as very dubious. On the one hand, it is essential to warn people against the possible fraud that an organization may commit and that may affect the stakeholders involved significantly.
On the other hand, the law may lead to bullying of both companies and users, which is a clear-cut violation of their civil liberties. Because the law is currently half-baked, and because its application has not been thought through well enough, the outcomes of forcing it thoughtlessly on the members of the online community may have dire results. Therefore, the Right to Be Forgotten should be considered with caution and only then applied to the target environment.
Ausloos, J. (2012). The ‘Right to be Forgotten’ – worth remembering? Computer Law & Security Review, 28(2), pp. 143-152. Web.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Bennett, S. (2012). The “Right to Be Forgotten”: Reconciling EU and US perspectives. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 30(1), 161-195. Web.
Cornell University Law School. (2016). The First Amendment. Web.
Dredge, S. (2014). Microsoft and Yahoo respond to European ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ requests. The Guardian. Web.
Fitzgerald, T. (2011). Information security governance simplified: From the boardroom to the keyboard. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Web.
Floridi, L. (2014). Right to Be Forgotten poses more questions than answers. The Guardian. Web.
Hsu, D.F., & Marinucci, D. (2012). Advances in cyber security: Technology, operations, and experiences. New York City, NY: Fordham University Press. Web.
Rosen, J. (2012). A grave new threat to free speech from Europe. New Republic. Web.