The Right to Be Forgotten
Unutilish huquqi
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Internetda shaxsiy ma’lumotlarni o‘chirish huquqi: shaxsiy hayot va axborot erkinligi o‘rtasidagi muvozanat.
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
For most of human history, forgetting was the default and remembering required effort. Newspapers yellowed in archives, gossip faded, and the mistakes of youth were, in time, largely forgotten by everyone except those who had made them. The internet has reversed this relationship. Today, remembering is the default: a foolish comment, an old debt or an embarrassing photograph can remain permanently accessible to anyone who types a name into a search engine.
Insoniyat tarixining katta qismida unutish odatiy hol, eslab qolish esa harakat talab qilgan. Gazetalar arxivlarda sarg‘ayib ketgan, mish-mishlar so‘nib ketgan va yoshlik xatolari vaqt o‘tishi bilan ularni qilganlardan boshqa hamma tomonidan deyarli unutilgan. Internet bu munosabatni teskari aylantirdi. Bugun eslab qolish odatiy hol: ahmoqona izoh, eski qarz yoki uyatli fotosurat qidiruv tizimiga ism yozgan har qanday kishi uchun doimiy ochiq qolishi mumkin.
In 2014, this problem reached the Court of Justice of the European Union. A Spanish lawyer, Mario Costeja González, complained that searching for his name on Google still produced a newspaper notice from 1998 announcing the auction of his property to pay off social security debts. The debts had long since been settled, and he argued that the information was no longer relevant. The court agreed, ruling that search engines could be required to remove links to information that was “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive”, even if the original publication remained lawful. The principle was later incorporated into European data protection law.
2014-yilda bu muammo Yevropa Ittifoqi Adliya sudiga yetib bordi. Ispaniyalik advokat Mario Kosteja Gonsales Google’da ismini qidirganda hali ham uning mulki ijtimoiy sug‘urta qarzlarini to‘lash uchun kim oshdi savdosiga qo‘yilishi haqidagi 1998-yilgi gazeta e’loni chiqayotganidan shikoyat qilgan. Qarzlar allaqachon uzilgan edi va u bu ma’lumot endi dolzarb emas, deb ta’kidlagan. Sud rozi bo‘lib, asl nashr qonuniy bo‘lib qolgan taqdirda ham qidiruv tizimlaridan “noto‘g‘ri, ahamiyatsiz yoki endi dolzarb bo‘lmagan yoki ortiqcha” ma’lumotlarga havolalarni olib tashlash talab qilinishi mumkin, degan qaror chiqardi. Bu tamoyil keyinchalik Yevropa ma’lumotlarni himoya qilish qonunchiligiga kiritildi.
The ruling has been welcomed by privacy advocates as a necessary protection of human dignity in the digital age. People change, they argue, and a society that never allows anyone to move beyond their past is both cruel and impractical. Someone who committed a minor offence as a teenager, or who was the subject of an unfounded accusation, should not be condemned to have it define them for the rest of their life. Many legal systems already recognised this principle long before the internet, allowing certain criminal convictions to be considered “spent” after a period of time.
Shaxsiy hayot himoyachilari bu qarorni raqamli asrda inson qadr-qimmatining zarur himoyasi sifatida olqishladi. Ularning ta’kidlashicha, odamlar o‘zgaradi va hech kimga o‘tmishidan o‘tib ketishga yo‘l qo‘ymaydigan jamiyat ham shafqatsiz, ham amaliy emas. O‘smirlikda kichik huquqbuzarlik qilgan yoki asossiz ayblov ob’ekti bo‘lgan kishi umrining oxirigacha shu narsa uni belgilashiga mahkum etilmasligi kerak. Ko‘plab huquq tizimlari bu tamoyilni internetdan ancha oldin tan olgan va ba’zi jinoiy hukmlarni ma’lum muddatdan keyin “o‘tib ketgan” deb hisoblashga ruxsat bergan.
Critics, however, see a threat to freedom of expression and to the public’s right to know. They point out that the decision about what to remove has effectively been delegated to private companies, which receive hundreds of thousands of requests and have an incentive to remove information rather than risk legal costs. Journalists worry that politicians, business people and others with something to hide could use the right to bury legitimate reporting about their past conduct. There are also practical difficulties: information removed from searches in Europe may remain easily accessible from elsewhere in the world.
Biroq tanqidchilar bunda so‘z erkinligi va jamoatchilikning bilish huquqiga tahdidni ko‘rishadi. Ular nimani olib tashlash haqidagi qaror amalda yuz minglab so‘rovlarni oladigan va huquqiy xarajatlarni xavf ostiga qo‘yishdan ko‘ra ma’lumotni olib tashlashga manfaatdor bo‘lgan xususiy kompaniyalarga topshirilganini ta’kidlashadi. Jurnalistlar yashiradigan narsasi bor siyosatchilar, tadbirkorlar va boshqalar bu huquqdan o‘zlarining o‘tmishdagi xatti-harakatlari haqidagi qonuniy reportajlarni ko‘mib tashlash uchun foydalanishi mumkinligidan xavotirda. Amaliy qiyinchiliklar ham bor: Yevropada qidiruvdan olib tashlangan ma’lumot dunyoning boshqa joylaridan osongina ochiq qolishi mumkin.
In my view, both sides are partly right, and the real question is not whether such a right should exist but how it should be limited. A sensible approach would distinguish clearly between private individuals and public figures, for whom accountability must take priority. It would consider how much time has passed, whether the information concerns a person’s public role, and whether it remains relevant to decisions others might reasonably make about them. Above all, decisions of this importance should be subject to transparent rules and independent oversight, rather than left to the discretion of search engine companies.
Menimcha, ikkala tomon ham qisman haq va asl savol bunday huquq mavjud bo‘lishi kerakmi emas, balki u qanday cheklanishi kerakligidadir. Oqilona yondashuv xususiy shaxslar va hisobdorlik ustuvor bo‘lishi kerak bo‘lgan jamoat arboblari o‘rtasida aniq farq qo‘yardi. U qancha vaqt o‘tganini, ma’lumot shaxsning jamoatchilikdagi roliga taalluqlimi va u boshqalar u haqida oqilona qabul qilishi mumkin bo‘lgan qarorlar uchun dolzarbligicha qoladimi, buni hisobga olardi. Eng muhimi, bunday muhim qarorlar qidiruv tizimi kompaniyalarining ixtiyoriga qoldirilmasdan, shaffof qoidalar va mustaqil nazoratga bo‘ysunishi kerak.
There is a final irony worth noting. Mario Costeja González went to court to have an old, minor embarrassment forgotten. As a result of winning his case, his name and the details of his debts are now among the most widely known facts in European law, discussed in textbooks and lecture halls around the world. The right to be forgotten, it seems, can be remarkably difficult to exercise.
E’tibor berishga arziydigan so‘nggi kinoya bor. Mario Kosteja Gonsales eski, kichik bir uyatli holat unutilishi uchun sudga murojaat qilgan. Ishni yutgani natijasida uning ismi va qarzlari tafsilotlari endi Yevropa huquqidagi eng keng tanilgan faktlar qatorida bo‘lib, butun dunyodagi darsliklar va ma’ruza zallarida muhokama qilinmoqda. Unutilish huquqidan foydalanish, ko‘rinishidan, ajablanarli darajada qiyin bo‘lishi mumkin.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the writer’s main position?
-
2 Why did Mario Costeja González go to court?
-
3 What did the court rule in 2014?
-
4 What concern do critics raise about private companies?
-
5 What is the “final irony” in the last paragraph?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 González regretted going to court.
-
2 Critics say the right strengthens freedom of expression.
-
3 The original newspaper publication could remain lawful under the ruling.
-
4 Most removal requests are made by politicians.
-
5 The writer wants decisions to be subject to independent oversight.
-
6 González was a famous politician in Spain.
-
7 The writer believes public figures and private individuals should be treated the same.
-
8 Some legal systems allowed convictions to be considered “spent” before the internet.
-
9 González’s debts were still unpaid in 2014.
-
10 According to the writer, the internet has made remembering the default.
-
11 Search engines receive hundreds of thousands of removal requests.
-
12 Information removed in Europe may still be accessible elsewhere.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.