The right to erasure gets close, but subject to rules

I have written in this column about emerging legislation and thinking in yonder jurisdictions regarding privacy rights and the right to be forgotten in a world of the all-permeating internet and social media. 

Just to remind ourselves, in 2016, the European Union (EU) enacted the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law that inter alia provided for the “right to erasure” of personal information on the internet in very specific circumstances and conditions.

Article 17 of the GDPR states: “The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay.” It is however not simply a blanket obligation, a number of conditions apply and have been defined in the law. 

While many have contested this idea as an attempt to tamper with history and the record, many others have argued that there is no sound reason why wrong or irrelevant information about an individual should be stored forever and be bandied around. 

Journalists have particularly been accused of fishing out irrelevant old information about individuals and building it into new stories as “background” even when the information was wrong at the time but though to be true, or one has since been cleared through courts.

As a result, many media organisations in Europe and Americas have taken the progressive road and created mechanisms in their editorial policies under which the right to erasure may be granted or not.

Nation Media Group, which is the biggest multimedia company in East and Central Africa recently revised its editorial policy guidelines and took cognizance of emerging trends, realities and challenges of a digitizing world as well as responsibility of media as a purveyor of information and recorder of history. It thus introduced a provision that touches on the right of erasure. 

Under the subhead, “Unpublishing content and correcting errors online”, it reads: “There are instances when editors receive requests to unpublish a story or photograph, even from digital platforms when the subjects of those articles feel a pressing need to protect their right to privacy or when the stories complained of contain misleading personal information. Normally, a correction or clarification should be enough. However, legislation that seeks to safeguard personal data from use or disclosure if it is not in the interest of the individual so exposed, is giving some justification to demands to take down stories. While there is no universally accepted standard, our editors should be guided by the following criteria and rules when dealing with requests to take down stories or graphics already published:
(i) Compelling legal reasons, such as if the story is defamatory, violates privacy rights, plagiarized, or is an infringement of copyright.
(ii) The story is fundamentally or entirely inaccurate and untrue and cannot be corrected without writing a new story; i.e. if you removed the inaccuracies and untruths from the story you would be left with an empty shell, a non-story -- a story that is not real or newsworthy. Therefore, such a story qualifies to be unpublished on the basis that it is fundamentally or entirely inaccurate and untrue and cannot be corrected without ending up with a non-story.
(iii) The story is obsolete, unfair and endangers someone’s life.
(iv) When correcting errors online, editors should indicate that the content has been adjusted, and what the original error was.”
*****
READERS HAVE YOUR SAY
Wamala Phillip: I would like to make a correction on the article on the Daily Monitor website titled: “Guns and ivory: How Arab traders uncovered the heartbeat of Africa” (March 8, 2012). In the first paragraph, you wrote that the Arabs who arrived in 1843 arrived in the court of Kabaka Mutesa I. That is not true; Kabaka Mutesa I was not the king at that time; his father Kabaka Ssuuna II was the king. Thank you for the good work.
Public Editor: Thanks for your eagle, the story has been corrected.

John Kavuma: Perhaps this may be your 2021 Daily Monitor’s best article or story of the year (see: “Jovia Saleh, foreign investors fight over Saracen”, October 18). Well presented, analysed, legally educative, entertaining and concluded. Thumbs up for the author!  

Public Editor: Great feedback! Shared with the team and indefatigable reporter, Fredric Musisi.

Send your feedback/complaints to 
[email protected] or 
call/text on +256 776 500725.