Erasing Your Child’s Internet Presence

When I was in high school, there was a small controversy at my school regarding an Iranian-American student beaten up in a bathroom by other students. The beating was caught on film and the students who bullied the victim were foolish enough to put the video online. The video has since been removed. I don’t know who took the video down, but California passed a law this year which would require websites to give the bullies the right to take down such incriminating evidence.

SB-568 – The Right to Remove Internet Content for Minors

A few months ago, I wrote on the right to be forgotten. Back in May, the right to expunge one’s own web presence was merely a theoretic exercise. Well, California has jumped the bridge from theory to actual law. The new law, SB-568 (fresh out of clever acronyms?), requires websites to give minors the ability to delete their own postings, be it text, photo, or video. The law also requires websites to clearly inform minors how they may go about deleting the information they posted. SB-568 defines “minor” as a person 18 years or younger. Information that  was uploaded by a third party or that has been subpoenaed cannot be removed. The law will be implemented in social media websites in 2015.

Proponents of the new law, including the governor, see the new law as a means to protect children from themselves. Kids will be kids, SB-568 supporters claim, and children shouldn’t be penalized for that. Indeed, the direction of the law seems to support the idea that there is a right to Internet privacy. Federal law already limits the information a website can collect from children who are 13 or younger. Other laws require websites to publicly reveal what information they are collecting and with whom that information is shared.

Drawbacks to SB-568

Despite its good intentions, SB-568 has a number of flaws. First, the new law is nearly useless. The embarrassing video on YouTube might be shared on Facebook. If it was uploaded by a third party, the user still can’t touch that content.

Second, it is questionable whether the right to privacy exists on all websites. The nature of the website should control whether there is an expectation of privacy. Posting on Facebook is not like posting on Twitter. The former is sometimes regarded as a private chat between friends while the latter is more like posting an advertisement on a roadside billboard. Nina Davuluri, the first Indian Miss America, was called “Ms. 7-11,” among other racial slurs, across Twitter. If an employer can fire an employee for calling Davuluri “Ms. 7-11” on a public billboard, it should be equally possible for an employer to fire an employee for calling Davulvuri “Ms. 7-11” on a website which functions like a billboard.

My biggest concern with SB-568, however, is the potential for abuse. Extending the “right to be forgotten” to elected officials would be disastrous. Similarly, teenagers who engage in conduct far more inappropriate than “childish behavior” should not be allowed to walk away from their actions.