We know many instances where we search a person’s name and the internet has preserved a version of that person long after the law or time has moved on. An allegation becomes a front-page story. The headline turns into a past article. The article is made into a search result. Years later, when someone searches that name, the allegation may appear in a few seconds, while the judgment that acquitted, cleared, or otherwise ended the proceedings may be buried several pages below, if it’s there.

The problem is not that the original reporting was false. It could have been entirely true at the time of its publication. The issue is how to make one part of the story visible forever, while the other part (the legal verdict) is almost invisible. The “right to be forgotten” comes into play in Pakistan here.

The right to be forgotten is generally interpreted as the right to have personal data removed from search results or otherwise deleted when it is no longer relevant, outdated, inaccurate, or unlawfully processed. In the search engine context, this is often referred to as “delisting”: the webpage can still be found on the internet, but no longer appears in the search results when the person’s name is entered.

That distinction matters. The right to be forgotten is not necessarily a right to destroy history. It questions the continued ease with which information can be linked to a person’s identity when the rationale for it being so easily available has become less.

A Right to Erase, But Not Rewrite History

The modern right to be forgotten is the result of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), which was handed down in 2014. The Court acknowledged that search engines work with personal information and that in certain cases, a person might request the search engine to remove links to personal information from search results.

The principle was later enshrined in Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which was specifically known as the “right to erasure (right to be forgotten).” It provides that:

“The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay.”

“The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay.”

These encompass the cases in which the data is no longer required for the purpose it was originally collected, consent has been revoked, there are no other lawful bases for processing, the data was processed in an unlawful manner, or the processing is required by law. Article 17 also protects conflicting interests such as freedom of expression and information, legal obligations, public-interest functions, public health, scientific or historical research, statistical purposes, and establishment or defense of legal claims. (EUR-Lex)

Looking at how Article 17 is set out, the core point stands out. The right was not meant to act like a tool to erase any and all records someone dislikes. Instead, it is meant to strike a balance between privacy and the need for access to personal information. The challenge is heightened if the information is about criminal proceedings.

When the Information Is True

A person convicted of a serious offense cannot outright demand that his conviction record disappear from the internet simply because it is damaging to his reputation.

In NT1 and NT2 v Google LLC, the English High Court dealt with requests about old criminal records. It reached different results for the two people who applied. The Court took into account the nature of the offenses, whether the convictions were spent, the applicants’ behavior since their release, the ongoing relevance and truthfulness of the information, the impact on their private and family lives, and their continued relevance when it comes to the public.

The fact that a conviction had become spent was a “weighty factor” in favor of delisting, but it was not decisive. The case demonstrates why criminal information cannot be treated as automatically removable merely because time has passed.

Google applies a similar balancing approach when it comes to the removal of information. When considering such applications, it asks whether the continued display is........

© Paradigm Shift