to be forgotten”. They ordered Google to remove undesirable links to personal data

法院命令，若有使用者提出要求，Google必須移除

that is “inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive” when asked to do so. However,

「不正確、不適當、不相關或者過度渲染」的個人資訊。然而，

opponents of the ruling say that it is a form of censorship, and could have a chilling effect

反對者反駁這也是一種審查權，且可能會對網路言論產生所謂的寒禪效應，

on internet speech. So, should you have the right to be forgotten on the internet?

所以，我們到底該不該在網路上有所謂的被遺忘的權力呢？

This idea is actually not a new legal concept. A decade ago, the 1995 European Union Data

這個想法其實並不新。在十年前，1995年歐盟資料保護指令

Protection Directive set the stage for updated privacy rules in the digital era. With the

增加對於數位資料世代符合時代要求的隱私權規範。

ubiquitous nature of internet record keeping, erasing information is not as easy as it used

由於網路無所不在的特性，要將個人資訊完全清除日益困難。

to be. Many believe legal protections need to catch up with the 21st century.

許多人認為身處21世紀的我們應該享有相對與時俱進的法律保護。

The problem with the right to be forgotten is that it inherently contradicts the right

被遺忘權的問題在於它在本質上與言論自由的意涵相違背。

to free speech. A person cannot simply have information removed because he or she disagrees

一個人不能單單因為他或她不認同或不喜歡某則資訊就要求移除。

with or dislikes its content. But when information fits the profile of “inaccurate, inadequate,

但是，一旦這個資訊符合「不正確、不適當、

irrelevant or excessive”, courts will have to weigh how damaging the information is to

不相關或者過度渲染」等特性時，法院將會權衡這則資訊對當事人所造成的損害

the person versus how relevant that information is to the public. Often the decisions are

相對於這項資訊對於社會大眾"知的權力" 孰輕孰重。往往，

made on a case-by-case basis. Examples would be arrest records, revealing photos, regrettable

判決的結果都因案子內容而不同。像是有犯罪記錄、裸露的帳片、

tweets, and even false accusations or rumors.

後悔發出的推特，甚至不實指控或是謠言等。

However, critics of the ruling point to some controversial cases as examples of unnecessary

然而，部分有審查權爭議的案子是造成批評判決的主因

censorship. One news agency reports that a story about a Scottish man who strangled his

某個新聞從業機構報導一個蘇格蘭男子在2002年使他的老婆窒息而死的故事，

wife in 2002 was removed by Google as a result of the new ruling. Other stories, which may

由於新法上路而從Google上被刪除的案例。還有其他的故事，

be important to the public, pertaining to things likes tax evasion or theft, were also

也許對於社會大眾有其重要性，像是許多關於逃漏稅或是竊盜的新聞，

deleted. Many feel that this kind of removal of information violates freedom of speech,

也都遭到刪除。許多人感到類似這種的資訊遭到刪除是一種對言論自由和

and public access to data. About a quarter million requests for Google to remove information

社會大眾獲取資料權力的一種傷害。大約已經有25萬件對Google申請要求移除資訊

have already been made.

被提出來。

Currently, the ECJ ruling affects only search results on the European version of Google,

現在，歐盟法院規定此法令只對歐洲版 Google 產生效力，

and the removed results still appear when searched on Google.com. No actual content

而且那些被移除的資料仍然可以在Google.com上被搜尋到。其實沒有任何資料

is erased, and the nature of the internet suggests it will exist indefinitely. So, unfortunately,

真的被移除，而且由於網路的本質使得沒有人能確定的說這些資料已被永遠移除。所以，不幸地，

according to current laws, whether or not you have the “right to be forgotten”,

根據現行法令，不論你是否有"被遺忘的權力"，

is mostly irrelevant.

其實並不重要。

Google, despite struggles is one of the most powerful companies in the world. To learn

Google 在面對這樣的挑戰之時，仍是世界上最有影響力的公司之一。要了解

more about how influential they really are… take a look at our video here. Click the link

這家公司的影響力，請看看這部影片。點擊

in the description to see the whole thing. Thanks for watchin’ TestTube, don’t forget

上面的連結可看到完整的影片內容。謝謝您收看TestTube，別忘了

to subscribe!

要訂閱喔！