The internet has granted humanity an infinite memory, but it has also borne a countermovement known as “the right to be forgotten.” For archivists, whose professional identity is rooted in the right to remember, this creates a profound legal and philosophical tension. As data protection laws tighten globally, institutions find themselves at a crossroads between their desire to preserve history and their obligation to protect privacy.
Defining Rights
The right to be forgotten (formally known as the right to erasure) is the principle that individuals should have the right to request the removal of their personal data from public records under certain conditions.
The most significant driver of this movement is Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which requires data controllers to erase personal data without delay if it is no longer necessary, if consent is withdrawn, or if it was unlawfully processed.
While the United States lacks a federal equivalent, state-level frameworks like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), have introduced similar, though limited, deletion rights for individuals.
Public Interest
If Article 17 were applied universally and without nuance, the historical record would contain gaps. Recognizing this, the GDPR includes safeguards for cultural institutions. Article 89 provides exceptions for archiving in the public interest, for scientific or historical research, or for statistical purposes. These exemptions allow archives to deny erasure requests if granting them would render the achievement of the mission impossible or seriously impair it.
However, these protections have limits. Institutions must still implement technical and organizational measures, such as restricted access, to respect the data subject’s privacy while maintaining the integrity of the record.
From Intake to Identity
The erasure request process begins with an intake procedure. Jurisdictional complexity is a major hurdle, as a United States-based university archives holding the papers of a European diplomat may still be subject to GDPR if the data pertains to EU citizens.
The first step is identity verification to prevent fraudulent or abusive claims. Once identity is confirmed, the archives must evaluate the record against its appraisal and retention schedules to determine whether it has permanent historical value or is a core part of a born-digital collection, such as an email archives.
Deletion vs. Restriction
Options extend beyond deletion. Archivists have a range of interventions at their disposal, such as redaction, which removes personal identifiers while preserving the record’s context.
Another method is anonymization, which alters data so that individuals are unidentifiable. Some institutions prefer processing restrictions, which involve keeping the data but locking it so it cannot be searched or viewed by the public for a set period.
The technical challenge of removing data from distributed systems and preservation storage is immense, as bit-level integrity is paramount, and removing a single file can break a checksum or invalidate a disk image.
Philosophical Conflict
Beyond the legalities lies a deeper question. The Society of American Archivists Code of Ethics requires professionals to balance the tension between the right to know and the right to privacy. Archival theory has long held that people save records to hold the powerful accountable. If a public figure can use the right to be forgotten to erase records of past malfeasance, the archives fails in its duty.
Conversely, archivists must acknowledge that in the past, obscurity was a natural feature of time. A search engine can now surface a decades-old record in seconds. The right to be forgotten is an attempt to reintroduce the grace of not remembering into a world that never forgets.
Defensible Decision-Making
Institutions must move away from ad hoc responses and toward a governance framework. Methods include maintaining policies that explain how the archives balances privacy with the public interest. It also requires audit trails and decision logs that document why an archives granted or denied an erasure request to provide a record for legal counsel.
Collaborative review involving a committee of archivists and legal experts is essential to mitigate reputational risk.
Archivists are moderators of memory and can protect individuals’ privacy without sacrificing the integrity of the human story. The right to be forgotten offers a more ethical and empathetic way to record history.
0 Comments