Book Report - Delete: The Virtue Of Forgetting in the Digital Age

For this assignment, I chose to read Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger because it addresses an intriguing topic – the importance of forgetting. In the past, it was easy, even normal, for people to forget details over time, but in today’s digital age, it’s nearly impossible due to these four factors: digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach. But even though it’s easy and cheap to remember, it’s necessary to forget because people and their views change over time. It’s not fair that information, whether offered voluntarily or not, can follow a person for their lifetime. Of course, there are some steps that people can take to protect their personal privacy, such as digital abstinence, but not even this response is foolproof.

One person who especially wishes that the Internet could forget is Stacy Snyder, who in 2006 was looking forward to starting her teaching career. She had satisfactorily completed all of her coursework when she was told by her university that her teaching certificate would be denied due to her inappropriate behavior. It turns out that a teacher, who worked at the school where Stacy was interning discovered that Stacey, like 110 million people, had a MySpace page, and on this page, she had posted a picture of herself dressed as a pirate drinking from a cup with the caption, “Drunken Pirate.” Although Stacy was over the legal drinking age, the teacher argued that students could potentially find this picture of her consuming alcohol. Perhaps Stacey should have shown better judgment and not posted the questionable picture, but the author cautions, “Should everyone who self-discloses information lose control over that information forever, and have no say about whether and when the Internet forgets this information (4)?”

Similarly, Canadian psychotherapist, Andrew Feldmar, wishes that some of his personal information could be forgotten. In 2006, he was attempting to cross the U.S./Canadian border when a guard decided to enter his name into an Internet search engine. The guard found an article that the respected psychotherapist had written for a 2001 journal, in which he admitted taking LSD in the 1960s and because of this article, Feldmar was denied further entry to the United States (4).

In these two cases, personal information was volunteered, but in most instances people provide information about themselves without realizing it. For example, in 2007 Google reported that it had a record of every query that every user had entered, and it knew whether that user clicked on one of the results that it had returned or not. It would seem that Google remembers more details about us than we remember about ourselves. Other organizations, such as travel Web sites, doctor’s offices, credit bureaus, and law enforcement agencies, keep digitized records that contain our personal information too (6-9).

Mayer-Schonberger concedes that there are some benefits to a digital comprehensive memory, but the cons outweigh them. Since the Internet and other digital devices, like camera memory cards and USB storage devices, keep a perfect memory of the information that people provide (knowingly or not) people will not only be judged by their present peers, but also their future peers (11). In the past, when a teenager wrote an article for a school newspaper, she didn’t have to worry about that article following her around for her entire career. Today, it is more likely that the article would remain attached to her long after her views have potentially changed over the years. As people are becoming more aware of the Internet’s ability to remember them and negative cases, such as Snyder and Feldmar’s are becoming more common, people are becoming more hesitant to express their true beliefs. The author smartly concludes that, “the future has a chilling effect on what we do in the present (12).”

Human memory is complex, and for thousands of years, our ancestors have been looking for ways to increase it. Remembering consists of two parts: storing information and later being able to retrieve that information. Early humans realized that if they repeated an act, like sewing, that they would be able to commit it to their memory, and this is known as procedural memory. Another type, declarative memory, is when “recall from procedural memory is automatic (19).” For instance, remembering a special occasion would fall into the latter category. One simply searches their brain for this information and they can remember it. Scientists are also unsure of what it means to forget. Many believe that information can’t be erased from the brain unless if psychological damage occurs. Rather the information is still stored in the brain, but there is no link to it (16-19).

Throughout the years, remembering was made easier for humans by language and other media, such as paintings and script. Language made it easier for people to communicate information to one another, and it also allowed for information to be spread geographically and for it to be passed from generation to generation. However, it took a lot of time and effort to communicate via language. Likely, information had to be repeated numerous times for the other person to remember it accurately. People soon realized that it would be easier to remember by using external memory. During the Renaissance, it was chic for families to hire a painter to capture a moment in time by painting a family portrait. This, however, was time-consuming and expensive. Writing was another means that our ancestors used to preserve memories, but this too was costly. Even with Johannes Guttenberg’s printing press, books were still a novelty until the 20th century. Similarly, film and photography were expensive ways of creating memories. In the 1850s, it cost 50¢ - $10 to develop a photo, which was the equivalent of $100 - $2,000 in 2006. Furthermore, a negative of the image wasn’t produced (23-46).

Now, however, it’s much easier and cheaper to remember because of digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach. Many media today are kept in a digital format: music, photography, video, and newsletters; even personal files, such as letters and journals are stored digitally. And unlike analog media, digital media withstands time and perfect copies of digital files can be made. Furthermore, it’s cheap to store these digital files. Consider that “in 2008, the cost of storage for one megabyte of information had been reduced to one hundredth of a cent (63).” If a person runs out of room on their storage device, they can simply purchase another one rather inexpensively. Digital storage in most cases is even cheaper than keeping an analog version. For example, a laser-printed piece of paper costs around 10¢, and a megabyte worth of text would cost around $50, whereas a megabyte of digital storage costs around one hundredth of a cent. It’s also easier to retrieve information when it exists digitally. One simply has to type a few words into a search box to find the relevant information, opposed to searching an index. Finally, a person can access stored information regardless of their location, as long as they are connected to that network (52-79).

“Until a few decades ago…to remember was the exception; to forget, the default (92).” But now, it’s costly to forget, and as a result we will all pay a price. In the past, people had more control over the information that they shared with others. For example, Stacy Snyder may have only intended for her friends to view the “drunken pirate” picture, but her supervisors also viewed it. Furthermore, a perfect copy of this photo could be redistributed to anyone without Stacy’s knowledge. There is also a comprehensive amount of information that is collected on individuals in various databases over time. It’s truly frightening that some information providers collect this information and create bundles that include a person’s interests, friends, and beliefs, and they will sell this information to anyone for a relatively small sum. In the past, a person had the opportunity of creating a fresh start in a new location, but not so much anymore (97-104).

There are some steps that people can take to protect themselves, but the effectiveness is questionable. Perhaps the most obvious action is digital abstinence. It would seem that if people avoid providing their information to a digital memory, they could easily be forgotten. However, they would also have to avoid search engines, like Google, and other ecommerce sites, such as Amazon. A major problem with giving all of this up is that a person wouldn’t receive the benefits of these sites. They make browsing easy. Another solution would be to enforce stricter information privacy rights. This would be tricky though. In theory, a person would give a company, such as the Post Office, a property right to her personal information, and she would relinquish control. However, what if she wanted the Post Office to have her new address, but she didn’t want to allow them to provide this information to a third party? These laws would have to be carefully crafted to work. The author also proposes an information ecology, in which digital files can only be kept for a certain time period. For example, DNA collected from witnesses and cleared suspects is deleted from databases in some U.S. states. Another “possible response aimed at preventing or mitigating the challenges of power and time posed by digital memory (128)” is perfect contextualization. In this case, people would have to evaluate the various information that is collected on a person and come to their own conclusions. This policy would create “a transparent society, in which comprehensive information about everything is available to everyone, and individual information control would be replaced by general transparency (164).” This system, too, has flaws. In this type of society, people would feel as though they were constantly being watched, and they would act with that in mind (128-165).

I really enjoyed this book because I agree with the author, Viktor Mayer-Schonberger, that our privacy rights are severely compromised in the digital age, and that we all have “the right to be forgotten (ix).” It’s tough because I, like many people, want to provide some personal information to various sites for different reasons. For example, I upload some personal details to my Facebook profile because it’s a way of socializing and keeping my friends updated on my life. I also use Google religiously. Before this book, I knew that it kept a record of searches, but I was shocked by the accuracy and details of their records. It’s truly frightening that they could tell me what I searched for in 2002 – something that I have clearly forgotten. Furthermore, it’s unsettling that some companies collect information about me that is stored in several databases, and this information is for sale. As the book details, until recent years, it was normal for humans to forget, and this allowed for people to act in the present. Now, however, it’s more expensive and difficult to forget, due to digitization, cheap storage, easy retrieval, and global reach. After reading this book, I’m going to limit the amount of personal information, in the form of pictures, videos, and blogs that I post online. I’m not scared of being judged by my peers now, but I don’t want to be judged by future peers. I also hope that we as a society will take careful consideration before judging others based on ideas that they express in a digital environment.

Works Cited

Mayer-Schonberger, Viktor. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2009.