The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online A Debate
(eVideo)
Contributors
Published
[Place of publication not identified] : Intelligence2,, [2015].
Status
Description
Loading Description...
Also in this Series
Checking series information...
More Details
Format
eVideo
Language
English
Notes
General Note
Streaming video file encoded with permission for digital streaming by Infobase on September 09, 2015.
Restrictions on Access
Access requires authentication through Classroom Video On Demand.
Description
In 2014, the European Union's Court of Justice ruled that individuals have a right to be forgotten online, "the right-under certain conditions-to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them." This right is not absolute, however, but meant to be balanced against other fundamental rights, like freedom of expression. In the six months following the court's decision, Google received more than 180,000 removal requests. Of those reviewed and processed, 41% were granted. Largely seen as a victory by Europeans, the reaction among Americans was overwhelmingly negative. Was the Court of Justice's ruling a win for privacy and human dignity, or a blow to free speech and public information? Should the United States adopt the "right to be forgotten" online?
Target Audience
9 & up.
System Details
System requirements: Classroom Video On Demand playback platform.
Language
Closed-captioned.
Citations
APA Citation, 7th Edition (style guide)
(2015). The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online: A Debate . Intelligence2, .
Chicago / Turabian - Author Date Citation, 17th Edition (style guide)2015. The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online: A Debate. Intelligence2.
Chicago / Turabian - Humanities (Notes and Bibliography) Citation, 17th Edition (style guide)The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online: A Debate Intelligence2, 2015.
MLA Citation, 9th Edition (style guide)The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online: A Debate Intelligence2, , 2015.
Note! Citations contain only title, author, edition, publisher, and year published. Citations should be used as a guideline and should be double checked for accuracy. Citation formats are based on standards as of August 2021.
Staff View
Grouped Work ID
a5207cad-cd53-2c62-aaf0-9bf66504f4fb-eng
Grouping Information
| Grouped Work ID | a5207cad-cd53-2c62-aaf0-9bf66504f4fb-eng |
|---|---|
| Full title | u s should adopt the right to be forgotten online a debate |
| Author | infobase |
| Grouping Category | movie |
| Last Update | 2023-01-17 14:42:32PM |
| Last Indexed | 2024-07-12 00:28:27AM |
Book Cover Information
| Image Source | classroomVideoOnDemand |
|---|---|
| First Loaded | Jun 8, 2023 |
| Last Used | Jan 5, 2024 |
Marc Record
| First Detected | Nov 16, 2015 12:00:00 AM |
|---|---|
| Last File Modification Time | Jan 17, 2023 02:50:09 PM |
MARC Record
| LEADER | 03922ngm a2200457Ia 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 100094776 | ||
| 003 | CVOD | ||
| 005 | 20151203151047.0 | ||
| 006 | m|||||o||c|||||||| | ||
| 007 | cr|cna | ||
| 007 | vz|czazuu | ||
| 008 | 151116p20152015nyu092||||||||o|||vleng|d | ||
| 028 | 4 | 0 | |a 94776|b Infobase |
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)931094964 | ||
| 035 | |a 100094776 | ||
| 040 | |a AzPhAEM | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a eng|j eng|h eng | |
| 245 | 0 | 4 | |a The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online|h [electronic resource] :|b A Debate /|c Intelligence2. |
| 246 | 3 | |a Right to Be Forgotten | |
| 264 | 1 | |a [Place of publication not identified] : |b Intelligence2, |c [2015] | |
| 264 | 3 | 2 | |a New York, N.Y. :|b distributed by Infobase, |c 2015. |
| 264 | 4 | |c ©2015 | |
| 300 | |a 1 online resource (1 video file (1 hr. 31 min., 36 sec.)) :|b sound, color. | ||
| 500 | |a Streaming video file encoded with permission for digital streaming by Infobase on September 09, 2015. | ||
| 505 | 0 | 0 | |t Introduction: Right to Be Forgotten Online Debate|g (1:22) --|t Debate "Housekeeping"|g (4:22) --|t For the Motion: Paul Nemitz|g (7:28) --|t Against the Motion: Andrew McLaughlin|g (7:16) --|t For the Motion: Eric Posner|g (7:25) --|t Against the Motion: Jonathan Zittrain|g (7:04) --|t Encouraging Censorship?|g (7:44) --|t Internet Search Results|g (3:01) --|t Chilling Effects|g (2:10) --|t Criteria for Information Removal|g (3:24) --|t Allowing Elite Abilities|g (3:32) --|t Q&A: Right Infringements|g (1:35) --|t Q&A: Google's Power|g (2:05) --|t Q&A: Law Tailored to Google|g (2:40) --|t Q&A: Administrative Criteria|g (3:03) --|t Q&A: 4th Amendment Context|g (1:45) --|t Q&A: Validity of Anonymity|g (1:34) --|t Q&A: Law Application|g (2:16) --|t Q&A: Oklahoma University Students' Racist Remarks|g (4:17) --|t Q&A: Adjudicating Power|g (3:42) --|t Concluding Statements For: Paul Nemitz|g (2:10) --|t Concluding Statements Against: Andrew McLaughlin|g (2:19) --|t Concluding Statements For: Eric Posner|g (2:02) --|t Concluding Statements Against: Jonathan Zittrain|g (2:15) --|t Debate Wrap Up|g (3:07) --|t Audience Voting Results|g (0:50) --|t Credits: The U.S. Should Adopt the "Right to Be Forgotten" Online: A Debate |g (0:58) --|t Trying Out Segment Feature|g (4:22) |
| 506 | 1 | |a Access requires authentication through Classroom Video On Demand. | |
| 520 | |a In 2014, the European Union's Court of Justice ruled that individuals have a right to be forgotten online, "the right-under certain conditions-to ask search engines to remove links with personal information about them." This right is not absolute, however, but meant to be balanced against other fundamental rights, like freedom of expression. In the six months following the court's decision, Google received more than 180,000 removal requests. Of those reviewed and processed, 41% were granted. Largely seen as a victory by Europeans, the reaction among Americans was overwhelmingly negative. Was the Court of Justice's ruling a win for privacy and human dignity, or a blow to free speech and public information? Should the United States adopt the "right to be forgotten" online? | ||
| 521 | 2 | |a 9 & up. | |
| 538 | |a System requirements: Classroom Video On Demand playback platform. | ||
| 546 | |a Closed-captioned. | ||
| 588 | |a Title from distributor's description (Infobase, October 1 2015). | ||
| 650 | 0 | |a Data protection|x Law and legislation. | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Privacy, Right of. | |
| 650 | 0 | |a Right to be forgotten. | |
| 655 | 0 | |a Educational films.|2 lcgft | |
| 655 | 0 | |a Internet videos.|2 lcgft | |
| 710 | 2 | |a Infobase, |e film distributor. | |
| 710 | 2 | |a Intelligence2, |e production company. | |
| 776 | 0 | 8 | |i digital transfer of (manifestation): |d Intelligence2, 2015. |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |z Part of the Classroom Video On Demand collection.|u https://cvod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?xtid=94776&wID=277820 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |z Cover image|u https://cdnsecakmi.kaltura.com/p/1067292/sp/106729200/thumbnail/entry_id/0_3brtesjv/version/100001/acv/151/width/88 |