If you were given a chance to erase your past with the push of a button, would you do it? No doubt some would pounce on the opportunity, and most of us would at least consider it; we have all had our embarrassing moments that we would prefer to be “forgotten.” In the age of mass media and the internet, a new right has become increasingly recognized that may allow us to delete certain parts of our past. Following a ruling by the European Union’s highest court earlier this year that confirmed that Europeans have a “right to be forgotten,” thousands of people have jumped on the chance to erase their past information while others have raised issues, sparking controversy around this new right. But first, what is this “right to be forgotten” and how does it work?

The right to be forgotten proposed in the EU is broadly defined as “the right to silence on past events in life that are no longer occurring,” and information that can be removed must be “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” At first glance, this may seem to have far-reaching consequences, but in reality this right is limited to the internet and only gives Europeans the ability to delete links only on search engines like Google that may lead to personal information relating to them; it does not give them the right to delete the information itself, only the search links. Though this may seem reasonable, the right to be forgotten has caused some to raise key issues, the most prominent of which is infringement of freedom of speech and expression.

The criteria stated above that are used to judge whether requests for deletion are valid or not were set by the EU court but are implemented by the search engines themselves. This has raised some issues; some believe that putting this type of power in the hands of the corporations will lead to selective deletion that benefit the corporations. In order to prevent this, the courts have set penalties in the form of enormous fines and lawsuits to keep corporations in line. However, this has had some adverse effects that threaten people’s rights to free speech and expression. These threats have caused the search engines to accept even ambiguous requests because they fear that failure to comply will lead to their prosecution. This means that even well-intentioned means are causing potential abuse of the right and unnecessary data deletion that can end up violating someone’s freedom of speech. And the actual implementation of this right has resulted in other difficulties as well.

Despite the existence of criteria created to prevent misuse of the right to be forgotten, in practice the broad and hard-to-enforce nature of the criteria has been either manipulated or evaded completely by deceitful individuals. Even Google has admitted that “dishonest requests to remove links to web pages were slipping through because the search engine relied on individuals to provide accurate and honest motives.” For example, many former criminals in Europe have requested that links leading to articles about their crimes be deleted. Though the majority of these requests have been denied, some have been granted because search engines believe the requests meet the criteria.   Whether those requests were true or not is a moot point, but what is indisputable is that there is a clear distinction between the right to be forgotten as a principle and the actual implementation of the right.

However, the right has mostly been used for its intended purposes, often with beneficial consequences. Since we all use the internet in our everyday routines for various purposes, it is not far-fetched to imagine personal information about ourselves becoming available online for others to see. Though usually harmless, this has caused much grief and frustration for some people. Take, for example, a crime victim who finds himself confronting issues regarding the crime that happened decades ago and is no longer relevant, and being reduced to a past that he had no control over. Instead of letting that one crime define who he is, through the right to be forgotten, he can request that Google take down links leading to articles about the crime, putting the issue out of the public eye. Clearly, a right to be forgotten would assist many people who simply wish to “start over” and lead better, more productive lives.

Whether the US should adopt this right is debatable; however, what we do know is that every policy, even well-intentioned ones like the right to be forgotten, has its drawbacks, and careful deliberation is necessary to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs.