What are the Jewish values surrounding the "Right to be Forgotten," developed in Argentina? Should we have to perpetually face the consequences of an action even if it is out of date or far in the past?

Does Jewish law believe in a “Right to be Forgotten”?
Absolutely.
Jewish law contains an array of prohibitions against disseminating negative or embarrassing information about people, even if that information is true.  These prohibitions can be overcome by a compelling private or public interest, such as the need to know the character of a potential spouse or a potential elected representative.  But in the absence of such an interest, or after the expiration of that interest, it is prohibited to disseminate such information, and there certainly is no right to such dissemination.
Judaism also specifically prohibits reminding people who have repented of their sinful pasts.
Of course, these laws can be perverted to other purposes, and to prevent access to information that genuinely does serve a public interest.  Lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits can have a chilling effect.  I do not know enough to take a position about the specifics in Argentina.  But I think the presumption should be in favor of the right to have one’s past private indiscretions erased from the internet.

 

What are the Jewish values surrounding the "Right to be Forgotten," developed in Argentina? Should we have to perpetually face the consequences of an action even if it is out of date or far in the past?

 

The question is, if I am not mistaken, based on a law that a person has the right to request that a negative report, incident, or embarrassment may be requested to be scrubbed from the internet.

 

A first question one might have: who decides whether an incident is either minor enough or long ago that it should no longer be publically accessible? How is that right determined? Right now, internet giant Google is the sole determiner. After a request by an aggrieved party is raised, Google makes the decision to remove information from the internet on the basis of  finding something they deem “irrelevant, outdated or otherwise objectionable”or “incorrect, inadequate or misleading”.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/the-right-be-forgotten-google-search

 

The latter is a clear directive in Jewish law. Leviticus 19:16 directs us not to ‘go about a talebearer’, i.e. do not spread dishonesty. The verse continues to state that a person should also not idly stand by the blood of his or her neighbor. The Talmud states that the proximity of the two verses is intentional: one who slanders his fellow, it is as if they spilled their blood (Bava Metzia 58a). So it is clear that not only should Google remove false and defamatory information from the internet: they do a mitzvah be removing it.

 

However, the former; that is, removing information from the internet that is irrelevant or outdated; is a subjective standard. Should Google remove a photo of a person drunk or doing drugs in one’s youth? Does a potential employer have the right to know that you were irresponsible when you were young? Or do you have the right to force Google to hide that ‘memory’ from everyone?

 

Google is operating as an arbiter of fairness. The Jewish standard for this is the idea of forgiveness is Rambam Hilchot Teshuvah, the ‘laws of repentance’. In this text, Rambam lays out that a person must do several to be forgiven: ask the individual they offended for forgiveness, ask for ablution from God at Yom Kippur, and (possibly most importantly in our situation) prove they have changed their ways. If a person is still making the poor decisions, (adultery, drug abuse, hurtful speech, etc.) is Google capable of knowing? I suppose a person can still have allegations made by third parties in the near term that will continue to be relevant.

 

The ongoing case of Marc Gafni is instructive. Gafni has a history of sexual misconduct going back several decades at multiple Jewish institutions. What if he applied for, and was granted, the right to have older misdeeds scrubbed? What if the result was his appointment to a position in which he sexually harassed or abused another person? A grave error would have occured, because the truth would have been obscured. There's no indication that Google has clear guidelines to avoid this from happening. And if an organzation wants to hire or not hire Mr. Gafni, they have the right to make that decision based on the truth, regardless of whether it occured last week or two decades ago. The Torah teaches us 'Write what is honest those words that are true' (Eccles. 12:10).

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/us/marc-gafni-center-for-integral-wisdom.html?_r=0

 

Google, as a business, is not in a particularly good position to make these judgements about who and what deserves to be forgotten. In theory, it could become a very lucrative business: any crime or misdeed can be removed for the right price. the inherent conflict of interest for Google makes them a poor choice as the final decider of these important and difficult moral choices.

 

Judaism believes in forgiveness. It believes that people can change. It also believes in truth, and that discerning individuals can decide for themselves whether an embarrassing mistake from a decade ago is still relevant. I don’t think Judaism would affirm the current version of the ‘right to be forgotten’. One must be careful and moral in deciding what gets scrubbed from the internet, and Google probably isn’t the right organization to make that judgement.

 

The “Right to be Forgotten” is a concept that has been tested in the courts of Argentina, as well as other Latin America countries and Europe.  At the heart of the matter is the question of how digital material is used and perpetuated by search engines such as Google and Yahoo, and the right of an individual to maintain and regulate her/his existing digital information.

 

The “Right to be Forgotten” movement insists that search engines cannot manipulate an individual’s information, associations, or history.  This applies especially in cases when an individual’s past has no bearing on her/his present and can be detrimental to that person.  The movement does not include information that might still be relevant, e.g. Megan’s law is a good example that would not be covered by the Right to be Forgotten.”

 

When considering the “Right to be Forgotten” through a Jewish lens we turn to issues of modesty, freedom of speech, and b’tzelem elohim, being created in God’s image.  Here the midrash, rabbinic commentary, is very helpful; in the Torah when Balaam saw the people Israel dwelling according to tribes, he exclaimed: “how goodly are your tents O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel!” (Numbers 24). The Talmud (Bava Batra 60a) explains these verses: “What did he see? He saw that their tent openings did not face each other. He [Balaam]said: these are worthy for God’s presence to rest upon them.”  Essentially, this midrash teaches that each of the tents, and each member of the community, was afforded privacy.  Additionally, the Mishnah (Bava Batra 3:7), supported by other Jewish texts, states: “In a common courtyard, a person should not open a door opposite a door and a window opposite a window.”  From these texts we learn the principle of “hezek r’iyah” or damage that’s caused by looking.  Applied to modernity in the case of the “Right to be Forgotten,” we violate individual’s basic right to privacy when we open or peek into another’s “tent.”  

 

Freedom of speech is a cherished virtue in Jewish tradition but with certain parameters.  One of the primary considerations in freedom of speech within Jewish law considers any negative language about an individual, even if it is true, to be lashon hara, evil speech.  Therefore, any digital information that remains available on the internet, especially information that is potentially destructive to the individual would be considered lashon hara.  Moreover, any data shared about an individual potentially impacts a person’s dignity; Jewish belief maintains that we are created in the image of God, and this should be preserved.  It is important to note that any online material pertinent to the public good should be maintained, e.g. Megan’s law as noted above, in accordance with the “Right to be Forgotten” understanding, and balancing this with Jewish thought on public safety.

 

These are just some of the Jewish values we can understand the “Right to be Forgotten” movement.  It is this author’s understanding that the “Right to be Forgotten” is in keeping with Jewish texts and their interpretations.