The Trouble With Big Brother

I was in the library looking something up in books – a task which, tiresome at best, was made more difficult by the fact that the required volumes were on the bottom shelf, necessitating much uncomfortable physical contortion. It was then, with one hand steadying me and the other holding my spectacles in position, I thought “Those internet search engines are jolly useful: speedy, convenient, efficient". And I am impressed by the way that they remember my needs - as recently when I had to buy a new washing machine: each time I returned to my online search, adverts were displayed offering helpful suggestions as to which brand I should buy. (The only part they need to sort out is adding an “I bought one already” button so it knows when to stop. Okay, the internet is work-in-progress.)

Some people, however, would say that search engines are too useful, like the man who has just persuaded the European Court of Justice to rule that Google does not have the right to link to legitimately published material relating to him. Lest we confuse this case with the argument concerning privacy, it should be noted that his motive was actually the deliberate burial of facts he would rather not be known in case they tarnish his reputation. This is a very slippery slope: by seeking to control public access to information - not gossip - the plaintiff has sided with all of history’s tyrannical dictators. Even on a less dramatic scale there is cause for concern: the floodgates have thus been opened (in Europe) for a deluge of demands that Google should remove links to legitimately published information so that individuals might polish up their personal histories and present incomplete accounts, deliberately giving false impressions.

But aren't all impressions false, to some extent? It's notoriously difficult to get an objective account of history in the best of circumstances: not only is there the ancient precedent whereby the story gets written by the victor, but there is also the fact that two people who were present at the same event are unlikely to give exactly the same account of it - our memories tend to be affected by circumstances particular to ourselves. The best we can do is marshal as many facts as possible that may contribute to a balanced historical view.

And while we might all want the spotlight of publicity trained away from our misdeeds, this is neither feasible nor desirable. On the first count there is a strong likelihood that "the truth will out" and that we will be made to look foolish in having attempted concealment and be obliged to pay penalties for our transgressions.  On the second count, shouldn't we always strive to behave ourselves in any case? (Even Google knows that we shouldn't be evil). One of the ways in which we manage to stick to the straight-and-narrow is by taking notice of peer pressure. We tend to behave ourselves if the rest of the clan is watching and, with the internet creating the biggest clan ever, there may be a chance that it will eventually have a civilising effect on those who tend to be un-civil. The ECJ judgement against Google potentially reduces the chance of this happening: by confusing the right to privacy with the need for freedom of information, the judges have made it just a little more difficult to discover facts which might be useful to us - and to themselves.

Optimistically, search engines could be a tool for facilitating justice, dishing the dirt on those who seek to escape their just deserts. On the other hand they may intrude a little too far, with damaging consequences: my image, for example, could be tarnished if it became known that my search results for a washing machine were sorted “cheapest first”.