Editorial: Permanent memory of the internet

The joke was made about 23 years ago when the director Kentaro Kobayashi was performing a comedic sketch. The footage from the 90s was recently made public in which Kobayashi is seen making jokes about the Shoah. 

One could argue that the jokes might be in poor taste. But does that justify the treatment meted out to him for a foolish statement made decades ago? Would forget and forgive not have sufficed? In India also, the right to be forgotten is gaining steam. A case in point is a reality TV personality Ashutosh Kaushik who has requested the deletion of his personal data on the internet. He moved the Delhi High Court on account of this demand, and said the data that exists online has been a source of perpetual heartache for him, and certain events from his life are constantly part of search results pertaining to him, which prevented him from seeking closure. 

Kaushik asked the court to instruct Google and relevant authorities to take down any posts, articles, and information related to the petitioner involving an episode of drunken driving. He has invoked the right to be forgotten which reflects the claim of an individual to have certain data deleted so they can’t be traced by third parties. It’s an attempt to erase past events from a life that are no longer relevant. 

The right to be forgotten is now being recognised as a crucial element of personal data protection laws as governments globally are mulling ways to offer people more control over data pertaining to them. In India, a lawyer representing Google said the nation does not have a law yet on the right to be forgotten. But the country’s Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 which is being examined by a Joint Parliamentary Committee recognises this right. As per Section 20 of the Bill, an individual has the right to restrict the continued disclosure of personal data when such data has served the purpose for which it was collected, or is no longer necessary for said purpose. This data can also be struck off if it was made with the individual’s consent, and the consent has since been withdrawn. However, this right is also subject to the rider that it does not impinge on the right to information of any other citizen. 

In spite of the absence of explicit laws regarding the right to be forgotten, the Delhi HC earlier this year instructed Google and an Indian legal portal to take down data pertaining to an American PIO, on account of the anguish caused to him due to the presence of such data online. India’s PDP Bill has borrowed a few pages from the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation that permits individuals to have their personal data erased. The Karnataka HC has recognised this right in context of cases involving women, and sensitive issues involving sexual assault or issues affecting the modesty or reputation of the individuals concerned. 

But the right to be forgotten can’t be treated as a witness protection programme by individuals after having run afoul of the law. This was clarified recently by the Madras High Court when it said that this right cannot exist when it involves court judgments. Justice N Anand Venkatesh categorically said that there is no use in redacting names in the final judgment or order when the name of the accused has been referred to in prior publications. It’s probably a mantra we can all live by. In a highly digitised world, where almost every human activity seems to leave a digital thumbprint that can be revisited and reused at any point in time, the best recourse might be to tread lightly.