Which example best fits the limit the author places on the right?
Search engines have turned the past into a permanent present. A youthful mistake, reported once in a local paper, can now be summoned by anyone typing a name. Supporters of a right to be forgotten say that people should be able to ask for such links to be removed once they have lost their relevance. Opponents reply that this amounts to censorship and rewrites history. The reply is overstated. The original article remains in the archive; what is removed is the ease of finding it. Libraries have always made some things harder to find than others. What matters is whether a person's reputation should depend on the efficiency of an algorithm. Of course, the right needs limits: a public official should not be able to bury an old scandal that still bears on their fitness for office.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. A former minister who asks to remove reports of financial misconduct that bear on a bid to return to office
- Step 1: The limit concerns public officials and scandals that still bear on fitness for office.
- Step 2: Only the former minister's case combines office, scandal and continuing relevance.
Answer
A former minister who asks to remove reports of financial misconduct that bear on a bid to return to office.
Why not the others: The teacher's offence is minor and unconnected to the job, and the student, shopkeeper and clerk have trivial or private information; none has the continuing public relevance that justifies the limit.
Practise more Privacy and technology.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.