Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The Internet never forgets. That’s the beauty of it, to some, and the terror of it, to others.
A man Shukan Post (July 31) calls “Mr. A” paid a 16-year-old girl for sex in 2011. He was arrested under the Child Prostitution Prevention Law and fined ¥500,000. He learned his lesson and turned over a new leaf. Or tried to. The trouble was, every time somebody googled his name — a prospective employer, for instance — up came references to that old offense. Is there no escaping a past misdeed? Are we doomed to be haunted for life by crimes paid for and sins atoned for?
Thwarted here and frustrated there, the man requested Google to erase reference to the offense. Google refused. The man sued. And on June 25, a Saitama District Court judge ruled in his favor, ordering Google to temporarily delete all references to the offense.
Google, naturally, will appeal, and an issue with vast moral, legal, social and personal ramifications remains — and probably will for some time — up in the air.
Its swelling significance is reflected in swelling numbers cited by Shukan Post: Tokyo District Court in 2009 heard 33 cases similar to Mr. A’s, ordering deletion of data in 3 percent of them. In 2013, the same court heard 711 cases, ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor 40 percent of the time.
The core of the Saitama ruling is that, Mr. A not being a public figure, the information in question has no social or historical significance. Google disagrees, arguing that members of a community, especially parents of young children, have a right to know about sex offenders in their midst.
A 2002 law sets up procedures for victims of slanderous information to demand the provider delete the data in question — but “slanderous” seems to mean false, in which case Mr. A would have no case. And what if “true” and “false” are matters not of fact but of interpretation? Protection of an individual’s right to privacy and rehabilitation, taken one step too far, can end up stifling free speech.
Take another example raised by Shukan Post: a major provider received a request from a hospital where a medical mishap had occurred. The hospital had settled the issue legally, the doctor responsible was no longer on staff and yet search results continued to link the hospital indelibly with that mishap. As long as that remains true, the hospital will never regain its reputation.
What about a former yakuza member who has gone straight but finds his name forever linked to his former gang? Or individuals arrested for groping or robbery? Perhaps, providers harassed with deletion demands argue, offenders should have thought about the damage to their reputations before they committed offenses.
In 2003, a club made up of freewheeling male students from two prestigious universities briefly became a household word when 14 of its members were convicted of gang rape. The club’s name was Superfree. One club member who was not involved in the crime sued Google in 2012 to have his name dissociated from it. The Tokyo District Court judge who heard the case upheld the man’s demand and ordered Google to pay him ¥300,000 in compensation for damage to his reputation. In January 2014, the Tokyo High Court reversed that ruling, finding for Google.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision sometime this year.
© Japan Today
12 Comments
Login to comment
kaynide
Google, being American based, has a very American point of view that doesn't always line up with Japan.
Here in Japan, there's great care towards hiding faces/names/etc, but in the States will plaster everything wide open. (see Cecil the Lion's story for an example...that man is having to deal with a modern witch hunt)
In fact, there is an online database in USA that shows you every single criminal...everywhere.
http://www.familywatchdog.us/
Search a location, click the map pins for full picture and detailed information on the individual, regardless of whether they are rehabilitated or not.
Robert Dykes
"District Court in 2009 heard 33 cases similar to Mr A’s, ordering deletion of data in 3% of them."
What a strange way to word this sentence. 3% of 33 is about 1 (.99 actually). So they heard 33 cases and only ordered deletion of only 1. Why didn't they just write it that way?
gaijinfo
All of these "please google forget about me" are missing a HUGE opportunity. All you've got to do is spend a bit of time working on your "public" information, and Google will tell the world whatever you want Google to tell the world about you.
Just create some "web properties" that put you in a very GOOD light (or whatever light you want) and make sure THOSE are the things people find when they Google your name.
Job seekers, those courting suspicious women should take heed.
katsu78
When it comes to articles discussing the moral impact of technology and policy, this one is some serious weak tea.
The hospital, the former gang member, the sex offender who solicited prostitution from a minor, these are all just people trying to dodge responsibility for their choices. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, and they do not deserve to have their errors in judgement forgotten just because they now regret them.
The only example I have any sympathy for at all (and even then not much) is the non-raping Superfree member. And even then I don't think Google should "forget" his association with the club. I think this member (and Shukan post judging by the tone of the article) are trying to put the responsibility on Google to avoid dealing with a deeper problem- that too many Japanese people make major, important decisions based on a superficial viewing of the reputation of whatever is being decided on.
And Japan's definitely no alone in that regard, but it's not Google's job to fix Japan's societal idiosyncrasies. If you don't want to play by the rules of the rest of the world, Japan, then do like China and invent your own search engine. I'm sure it will go just swimmingly.
nath
Biggest problem are the alleged cases, only to be found innocent down the road, but the garbage and insinuations are all that is needed to ruin a reputation first, split up a family etc. etc.
Elizabeth Heath
Those resident in the EU have the right to have their past erased on google. Many have done so.
M3M3M3
One day people are going to get fed up with having their entire lives recorded and archived online and they're going to storm Google and burn it to the ground, just like they did with the Bastille.
kaynide
Not sure why the thumbs down... i just made the comment that Google is American and therefore has an American point of view...and that for Americans what information Google has available is peanuts compared to what the Gov't has on public view.
Not that it is good or bad, just that it is.
Sioux Chef
I think you're misreading it. They ordered the deletion of 3% of the data identified in 33 lawsuits.
katsu78
If that is the case (and we wouldd need evidence to know it is), then the problem lies not with Google but with the people willing to ruin reputations and split up families on an insinuation. If anything, we need Google to keep the records of accusations that don't lead to convictions for the sake of people who study how often people are incorrectly accused and conviction rates. It's not Google's fault if members of a society aren't mature enough yet to deal with Google.
Peter Payne
I'm torn on this. Banks are allowed to, say, know whether you've had a bankruptcy within the last 7 years, but never beyond that...they are forbidden to ask, as it's all swept away after 7 years. I guess it'd be good for there to be a framework for things like this to be removed from the present, though if you commit a crime that's written up in the media, then it's not anyone's fault but your own.