Drawing the line

The right to be forgotten
Drawing the line
Google grapples with the consequences of a controversial ruling on the boundary between privacy and free speech

The article starts from Spanish lawyer’s case in which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in May that Google must remove certain links on request. This ruling has established a digital “right to be forgotten” and forced Google to tackle on setting boundaries between privacy and freedom of speech.
Two rights had coexisted occasionally offline, but online, these rights conflict frequently. Complicating matter is that American people put much importance on freedom of speech, but on the other hand, Europeans prefer to value on privacy.  

(1) What kind of information should be removed?
ECJ’s decision is vague. It ordered Google not to show a link if it is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” unless there is a “preponderant” public interest. Google is now piling cases which can help them to set boundaries of removal. What type of information do you think should be removed from results?

(2) How should users be made aware of the fact that the result has been affected by the ruling?
We already know that Google’s search results are somewhat controlled by the company (ex: advertising banners) but we still rely on its results. If Google change its results based on ECJ’s ruling, should it state clearly that its results are changed on someone’s requests?

(3) Whether should Google remove links from searches everywhere, not just on its European sites?

ECJ’s decision can be applied to other regions. Google provides its service globally and right to know or to be forgotten can be changed in places. What do you think Google should do in other places if requested?


Mission relaunched

America and Islamic State
Mission relaunched

Barak Obama has been trying to avoid getting into a fight in Syria for more than 3 years but he at last faced up to the inevitable fights with the jihadists. His attempt to deal with them is a test of America’s commitment to global security.

America seems to be locked in relative decline in recent years and overwhelmed by the forces of disorder. IS embodies this frightening trend. It is a non-state body and thrives on chaos. Its rise has also reflects American policy (Mr. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and Mr. Obama’s studious inaction in Syria).

Standing back has not worked well elsewhere in the world. When America stepped back, its allies also stepped back, too. IS has induced a change of heart among the American people by threatening them. Mr. Obama has a chance not just strike a blow for order in the Middle East, but also to give diclinists pause.

Mr. Obama should take a lesson from the mismanagement in post-invasion Iraq. He needs coalitions and partnerships from Sunnis, the UN, Britain, Turkey and so on. Although the mission to stop IS will be long and hard, it is true that no other nation could even contemplate.

1.        The economist clearly suggests the America interfere in the situation in the Middle East. But, some people think it should not. What kind opinion do you have on this issue?

2.        One of the reason why IS hates the America and the Western society is a wide gap between Western society and the other places including their places. Why do you think this kind of gap leads hatred? How should we act to ease the situation?