Faith, Forgiveness, and the Right to Be Forgotten: The Theology of GDPR
In 2014, a Spanish citizen Googled himself.
And he did not particularly appreciate what he found.
The search results page listed a 16-year old notice of a property sale in which he was involved. Along with the sale announcement, the Google result mentioned apparent financial troubles that had catalyzed the sale. Not wanting this 16 year-old indicator of his decades-past financial difficulty to define his online identity, the individual sued Google for the takedown of the information - and won!
Nearly four years later, this lawsuit has catalyzed a major shift in the balance of power in the control of online data. Beginning on May 25th, all residents and citizens of the European Union will gain the "right to be forgotten" through a series of regulations known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR.
Once the regulations go into effect, any "data subject" (ie, any EU citizen or resident) will be able to request the removal and deletion of their personal data from online services.
The far-sweeping regulation certainly impacts the Google search results page, where individuals will soon be able to request the takedown of less-than-flattering search results associated with their name. But the regulation also grants EU residents the right to see a record of all of their personal data stored by any online service. Residents and citizens can then demand that their data be updated, amended, deleted, or transferred to another service. All technology companies that do business with EU residents or have offices in the EU will be obliged to comply with these obligations, and will face seven-digit fines if found to be non-compliant.
This "digital bill of rights," which goes into effect on May 25th, 2018, is an important step towards user privacy and the protection of personal data - and while its authors may not have been thinking theologically when they wrote the regulations, there is certainly a strong theological case that can be made for the law.
Even with the diversity of practice, one might simply define forgiveness as forgetting. The Anchor Bible Dictionary defines forgiveness as "the wiping out of an offense from memory; it can be affected only by the one affronted. Once eradicated, the offense no longer conditions the relationship between the offender and the one affronted, and harmony is restored between the two."
Forgiveness, in both the Old and New Testaments, is not coming to say that something is OK or acceptable - though this is a very common misconception. Instead, forgiveness is a willingness to let go and move beyond. Sometimes, that letting go comes with a price. To many Christians, sin, or acts/thoughts/a state of being against the will of God, can only be forgiven by God, through the intercession of Jesus.
To the state - crime, or acts against the common good, can only be forgiven by legal authorities, who demand from the offender the payment of some form of penalty. But whether in the Biblical or the legal tradition, forgiveness happens once the offended agrees to forget the misdeeds of the offender, and thus to move onward in relationship.
This model has seemingly worked up until the invention of Google.
Search engines, and the internet more broadly, are bad at forgiveness. They are engineered not to forget, algorithmically programmed to remember our deeds - the good, the bad, even the sinful.
It is problematic when Google serves a search result that prolongs the existence of long-resolved financial trouble. It is troubling when Google serves a search result that perpetuates a debunked accusation. And what of convicted criminals who have served their debt to society? The legal system and society at large issometimes willing to forget their offense and move forward in relationship - Google, not so much.
The Biblical view further reminds us that forgetting and forgiveness must be the joint work of the offended and the offender. In so doing, it conceives of forgiveness in terms of restoration and transformation between real people, whose actions always have consequences.
The legal system essentially seeks to do the work of the offended, in setting a price for forgiveness, owed by the offender. But whatever the penalty paid, there isfor white collar crime a price that can be paid to trigger the requisite forgetting, and the subsequent restoration.
But do we, as a society, want Google to have that same authority? Without a right to be forgotten, any wrongdoings that make it into the Google results can never be forgiven, because they cannot be forgotten. Instead of two parties, offended and offender, working together towards forgiveness, Google acts as the sole arbiter, executing code as it deploys capricious judgment about whose sins shall be retained.
This is not necessarily Google's fault. When Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google, they sought out to categorize the world's information, and make it universallyaccessible to advertisers accessible and useful. But what started as a card catalog of the internet rapidly morphed into an inscrutable ethical standard used to evaluate people based on their search results. The speed of regulatory standards simply has not kept up with the pace of Google's booming bottom line - until now.
People of faith, people who understand forgiveness, or at least seek to practice forgiveness, should universally advocate for the right to be forgotten - whether that right extends to Google search results, Facebook posts, or the online records that companies have on what you have purchased, clicked on, or searched for.
It is a right that extends to EU residents and citizens beginning this month. It is also a right that all Americans deserve. The pace at which these rights arrive in the US depends, ironically, on whether the Trump administration's corruption and misdeeds will be forgotten in November.
Ryan Panzer is a theology blogger and former Google employee (Xoogler?). He loves all Google products - especially Google Photos - and loves to teach small businesses how to get started on AdWords, Analytics, and Google Maps. Despite the need for GDPR Regulations, he thinks Google is a great company and a genuinely fun place to work.
One day at Google, he talked on the phone to a company who was having some problems with their search results. A since-debunked article about a scam continued to show up next to their company's website. You might see how this would be bad for business.
He hopes they will be among the first to benefit when the right to be forgotten comes to the US.
And he did not particularly appreciate what he found.
The search results page listed a 16-year old notice of a property sale in which he was involved. Along with the sale announcement, the Google result mentioned apparent financial troubles that had catalyzed the sale. Not wanting this 16 year-old indicator of his decades-past financial difficulty to define his online identity, the individual sued Google for the takedown of the information - and won!
Nearly four years later, this lawsuit has catalyzed a major shift in the balance of power in the control of online data. Beginning on May 25th, all residents and citizens of the European Union will gain the "right to be forgotten" through a series of regulations known as the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR.
Once the regulations go into effect, any "data subject" (ie, any EU citizen or resident) will be able to request the removal and deletion of their personal data from online services.
The far-sweeping regulation certainly impacts the Google search results page, where individuals will soon be able to request the takedown of less-than-flattering search results associated with their name. But the regulation also grants EU residents the right to see a record of all of their personal data stored by any online service. Residents and citizens can then demand that their data be updated, amended, deleted, or transferred to another service. All technology companies that do business with EU residents or have offices in the EU will be obliged to comply with these obligations, and will face seven-digit fines if found to be non-compliant.
This "digital bill of rights," which goes into effect on May 25th, 2018, is an important step towards user privacy and the protection of personal data - and while its authors may not have been thinking theologically when they wrote the regulations, there is certainly a strong theological case that can be made for the law.
One of the core ideas of both Judaism and Christianity is forgiveness. If you walk into a church on Sunday morning, you are likely to hear forgiveness mentioned, perhaps several times over. Many mainline denominations begin their Sunday services with a rite of confession and forgiveness, while many Catholics participate in individual confession and forgiveness before participating in the mass. However practiced, forgiveness is undeniably central to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Even with the diversity of practice, one might simply define forgiveness as forgetting. The Anchor Bible Dictionary defines forgiveness as "the wiping out of an offense from memory; it can be affected only by the one affronted. Once eradicated, the offense no longer conditions the relationship between the offender and the one affronted, and harmony is restored between the two."
Forgiveness, in both the Old and New Testaments, is not coming to say that something is OK or acceptable - though this is a very common misconception. Instead, forgiveness is a willingness to let go and move beyond. Sometimes, that letting go comes with a price. To many Christians, sin, or acts/thoughts/a state of being against the will of God, can only be forgiven by God, through the intercession of Jesus.
To the state - crime, or acts against the common good, can only be forgiven by legal authorities, who demand from the offender the payment of some form of penalty. But whether in the Biblical or the legal tradition, forgiveness happens once the offended agrees to forget the misdeeds of the offender, and thus to move onward in relationship.
This model has seemingly worked up until the invention of Google.
Search engines, and the internet more broadly, are bad at forgiveness. They are engineered not to forget, algorithmically programmed to remember our deeds - the good, the bad, even the sinful.
It is problematic when Google serves a search result that prolongs the existence of long-resolved financial trouble. It is troubling when Google serves a search result that perpetuates a debunked accusation. And what of convicted criminals who have served their debt to society? The legal system and society at large is
The Biblical view further reminds us that forgetting and forgiveness must be the joint work of the offended and the offender. In so doing, it conceives of forgiveness in terms of restoration and transformation between real people, whose actions always have consequences.
The legal system essentially seeks to do the work of the offended, in setting a price for forgiveness, owed by the offender. But whatever the penalty paid, there is
But do we, as a society, want Google to have that same authority? Without a right to be forgotten, any wrongdoings that make it into the Google results can never be forgiven, because they cannot be forgotten. Instead of two parties, offended and offender, working together towards forgiveness, Google acts as the sole arbiter, executing code as it deploys capricious judgment about whose sins shall be retained.
This is not necessarily Google's fault. When Larry Page and Sergey Brin founded Google, they sought out to categorize the world's information, and make it universally
People of faith, people who understand forgiveness, or at least seek to practice forgiveness, should universally advocate for the right to be forgotten - whether that right extends to Google search results, Facebook posts, or the online records that companies have on what you have purchased, clicked on, or searched for.
It is a right that extends to EU residents and citizens beginning this month. It is also a right that all Americans deserve. The pace at which these rights arrive in the US depends, ironically, on whether the Trump administration's corruption and misdeeds will be forgotten in November.
Ryan Panzer is a theology blogger and former Google employee (Xoogler?). He loves all Google products - especially Google Photos - and loves to teach small businesses how to get started on AdWords, Analytics, and Google Maps. Despite the need for GDPR Regulations, he thinks Google is a great company and a genuinely fun place to work.
One day at Google, he talked on the phone to a company who was having some problems with their search results. A since-debunked article about a scam continued to show up next to their company's website. You might see how this would be bad for business.
He hopes they will be among the first to benefit when the right to be forgotten comes to the US.
Comments
Post a Comment