 Hello everyone. Thank you all for coming out on a cold evening. My name's James Mollison. I am the head coach of Purdue's speech and debate team, the C. Richard Petticrew Forum. We are so named because our team is actually founded from or by an endowment from the Petticrew Foundation. And then we're also run with institutional support from the Bryan Lam School of Communications and from the Philosophy Department. So This event is in conjunction with the 150th anniversary of Purdue University. And what we're going to do is have a public debate. I'm tremendously proud that we're having this event, and I'm also very excited for it to be against our alleged rivals from Indiana University. So the topic for the debate this evening, the motion for debate, is whether the United States federal government should make the right to be forgotten from internet searches a civil right. On the affirmative, affirming the resolution, supporting it, is the team from Purdue. We have senior Ben Carson, he's a philosophy major, as well as first-year student, Jong Jin Park, who's an economics major, negating the resolution, answering the question in the negative, if you will, are our friends from IU. We have Cameron Demlow Dunn, got it right, and Victoria Lindcourt. They are both juniors studying law and public policy. Before we get started, I'll just give like a quick sort of description of the format for this debate, and then hopefully you won't hear from me until the very end. So there's going to be a total of six speeches, and there will be four cross-examinations. So first we'll hear opening remarks from the affirmative team. That speech will be five minutes long, then there will be a two-minute cross-examination period from a member of the negative. And during that time the affirmative has to answer questions they aren't allowed to ask any. Then we'll hear opening remarks from the negative side, five-minute speech as well, followed by two-minute question and answer period with the affirmative asking the questions. Then we'll hear a second affirmative speech, also five minutes, followed by two minutes of cross-examination, and then lastly another five-minute speech from the negative side and two minutes of cross-examination. Once we've done all of that, there'll be two rebuttal speeches or sort of closing remarks, if you will. The affirmative will give their closing remarks first, and then we'll get closing remarks from the negative. Those two speeches will be four minutes. So all in all, we're looking at about 50 minutes of hopefully meaningful debate, and then after that I'll tell you all how to vote on who you think won the debate. So please join me in welcoming our speaker from Purdue University, Ben Carson, to initiate the debate by giving a speech not exceeding five minutes in length. Thank you everybody for coming. If my opponents are ready, then let's begin. In 2006, on Halloween Day, an 18-year-old girl was driving along a California highway. When she crashed into a toll booth, killing her instantly upon impact. The accident was so severe, the state coroner wouldn't even allow her parents to see the body. But because of two California highway police officers, there are now nine photos of the accident online for the entire world to see. According to the New Yorker, Nikki's parents have tried for 12 years to take down the photos, but without a legal framework to do so, they are subjected to daily online harassment, a fear of going on the internet, making it impossible for Nikki's family to grieve or have a reasonable sense of privacy. In order to save privacy in the digital age, my partner and I affirm that the right to be forgotten ought to be a civil right. The right to be forgotten broadly is the right to determine the development of one's life in an autonomous way, without the past unfairly affecting the present and the future. Specifically, we can look to the European Union's model, which states that internet search engines must remove personal information associated with an individual when the information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant, or excessive. This does not mean that the information is expunged completely, but rather that sites like Google and Bing respect a reasonable expectation of digital privacy by removing these links from their search results. By filling out a form, citizens of the EU are able to exercise this right and remove their personal information. There's legal precedent for such a civil right in America, too. A 1965 Supreme Court case notes that privacy rights are older than the Bill of Rights themselves, citing the intent behind the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments of the Constitution. Information privacy is the logical next step as the digital world grows. We have three contention to support of the right to be forgotten from internet search engines. The first is that the right to be forgotten protects victims, and a dignified society and justice ought to be prevented where possible. Unfortunately, in the digital age, the internet remains wild west, and these protections don't exist. Much like the case of Nikki's parents, many Americans are without legal recourse to take down irrelevant and excessive information. Often, these Americans are victims, so does a doctor from Florida whose mugshot surfaced online because the police arrested both her and her abusive boyfriend. Charges against her were dropped, but the images remain online, damaging her identity, and daily life. And this isn't a one-off case. A University of South Carolina study found that about half of those who are arrested aren't ever convicted. The Guardian then reports that many websites scrape police data and push millions of mugshots at the top of Google Surges, extorting the victims if they want their photos taken down. This problem gets worse for teenagers. Teenagers lack both legal protection and caution about the ubiquity of the web. For example, one student's private video of acting out a Star Wars scene was found by his schoolmates and posted on the internet. Consequently, he dropped out of school and spent time at a psychiatric ward due to cyberbullying. Sun Ho Kim of Indiana University finds that invasive material online can be devastating. Young people are more likely to experience emotional distress and cyber harassment, which can lead to suicide. An Illinois State study found that 11 suicide deaths due to cyberbullying occur per 100,000 individuals. A right to be forgotten can therefore be a useful tool in preventing this growing problem. Our second contention is that the right to be forgotten safeguards your online security. Americans are becoming increasingly worried about the security of their identity and for good reason. If you went to college between the 1970s and the 1990s, it's likely that your social security number was used as your college ID number. In fact, many schools even posted people's grades online using those social security numbers. Now 45 million Americans are at risk because these college materials that were created in the pre-web world have been archived online and are indexed in search engines, leading to reports by both MSNBC and CNN of social security numbers surfacing on Google. To quantify the problem, CNBC reports that 15.4 million Americans were victims of identity theft or fraud in 2016, which cost consumers more than 16 billion dollars. A right to be forgotten establishes a quick and easy path through moving data that could lead to identity theft. A simple request to Google and links to your personal information no longer show up. Our third contention is that a right to be forgotten ensures equal opportunity. A dignified society also recognizes that people deserve fair economic opportunities to pursue happiness. However, similar protections don't currently exist online. Lindsey Cook in the Journal of Law Technology and the Internet argues that in an ideal world, job candidates would be selected based on professional credentials and the ability to perform. And society is a strong interest in preserving these fair employment practices, which is also the basis of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She finds that the modern internet search is preventing millions of average Americans from finding employment, whether they know it or not, based on factors such as an individual's lifestyle, online comments, photographs, and videos. Worse, a Harvard study found that online information linked with an individual's name is frequently inaccurate and even defamatory, and can result in employment being next to impossible for the victim. The right to be forgotten helps to therefore solve this problem by giving job seekers an opportunity to have irrelevant and inaccurate content removed. In conclusion, the right to be forgotten ought to be a civil right because this right is necessary to maintain a well functioning society in the 21st century. At the end of today's debate, I want you to remember that a right to be forgotten is crucial to preventing emotional ruin, suicide, identity theft, and poverty. Thank you. So to start off, all of the examples that you gave in the first cross or first constructive have all been legally resolved in the courts. Why would the right to be forgotten still be necessary? Right. So the first problem is that courts can often take a really long time and the right to be forgotten can be done in a day. So you're preventing a lot of harassment. But what we'll talk about later, like for one example with Nikki's parents, the only reason that it's been solved is because California adopted their own right to be forgotten law. So without passing that, in effect, without affirming the resolution, those damages would still exist online. Okay. As to that point, so then is there a shorter review process for removing things from the internet than there is from going through a court case to determine guilt or importance of the information? In general, yes. But part of that is just due to court clog or because people don't have the money to go to court. Okay. So then would, can you identify for me who does the removal from Google search links, for example? So it's in part done by employees who work for Google and they had to hire a bunch of new employees to take care of this. But then there's also the legal side and like for example in the EU, they have an entire data protection authority agency that works with them and balances out the decision making process. So it'll either be done through newly trained Google employees or through a clogged court system? No, it will be done through both. And it's not a clogged court because it's a separate agency that was used exactly for this. So ostensibly in the United States, we would establish our own agency as well to handle this. Okay. Thank you. Would the right to be forgotten eliminate mugshot websites? Yes. It would entirely remove them or would it only remove those results from a Google search? Yeah. Sorry. It would not remove the websites, but as everyone uses Google to find information about someone's name or your own name, you won't be able to find that mugshot online anymore. Let's say you have the website bookmarked and you regularly check for new employees on the website. Sure. If you have a mugshot website bookmarked, it's going to be hard for us to fix that problem. But there's other legal avenues to solve that. Great. And that's about the time that we have. Are my opponents ready? All right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The right to be forgotten might sound good in the abstract, but in practice, it's raw censorship of the press, centralizes power with an unaccountable Google staff, and it helps criminals mask their records. Now, we all agree on exactly what the right to be forgotten is, but it's worth restating. It simply takes the links down from Google searches, making it less visible to the public eye. It doesn't actually take down the websites or the photos or the videos. That means that Nicky's parents could still be harassed with those photos. The Star Wars kid, his peers could still bully him by sharing that video amongst themselves. And identity thieves, they still get access to the social security numbers via illicit databases. Now, while the right to be forgotten would not address or solve any of those digital interpersonal conflicts at all, what it would do is make a lot of things worse for political accountability. The first thing that Victoria and I would like to address is censorship. The primary targets of the EU's requests are news websites, and not just tabloids or pulp magazines, but legitimate ones too. For example, the multiple BBC articles about how Merrill Lynch's CEO gave himself a $181 million bonus during the financial crisis of 2008 were successfully taken down thanks to the right to be forgotten. Or how about 159 different articles by the Guardian being delisted. These stories, none of them are falsehoods or fake, but they do reveal something of a contentious nature. Generally a record of serious crimes, or in the case of politicians and the CEO of Merrill Lynch, scandals. Now, it isn't only the requests that are the problem, but where that power is being vested within. Thus I move on to our second point, that of power centralization. The processes for how a claim is determined to be valid or not are entirely internal within Google. These companies, they're not accountable to any public institutions and their judgments at all for purging any links. Now, Google is incentivized to actually approve as many of the claims as they possibly can, as no one is verifying that they didn't make any mistakes when they approved them. However, when they reject the claims, they have to go through legal arbitration in the courts that were mentioned in cross-ex. Now, that's a hassle that Google doesn't want to deal with, because why would they pay legal fees when they could just click a button and not do that? According to Google's own internal records, the staff that are handling these right to be forgotten requests aren't even legal professionals. They're software engineers and interns, and these requests go through the same people and processes that bug reports do. This means that the same people who are responsible for fixing a broken link are responsible for being the ultimate arbiters of whether or not a convicted pedophile should have that conviction easily accessible to the public or not. On that note, I move on to our last contention, that being the masking of criminals. The Guardian has stated that delisted stories, thanks to the right to be forgotten, have included those such as a former bank clerk who was imprisoned for stealing money from elderly people's bank accounts and a news article about the criminal investigation of a well-known businessman for alleged fraud, falsification of documents, and tax evasion. None of those stories are falsehoods or even incorrect in the slightest. Instead, they were arbitrarily hidden from the public eye just by being deemed irrelevant by Google techies. Now, I can't speak for all of you, but I certainly want to know when my grandma's bank account is being handled by a thief. But we don't just have examples of these things, we also have the statistics. Of the requests for delisting made as of 2015, 31% were for involvement in fraud or scam incidents, 20% were for the removal of records of violent crimes, and 12% were for the removal of articles about child pornography convictions. These numbers are from an interview with the CEO of Google, and need I remind you that Google are the only ones with accurate information about this since they're the only ones responsible for it with no public auditing process. Now I'll move on to addressing our opponent's points directly. On the tragic example of Nikki's car crash, it's a terrible story, but fortunately it was already resolved through the existing U.S. legal system. In 2012, her family's lawsuit concluded, and they were awarded over two million dollars from the California Highway Patrol. More importantly, the lawsuit rewrote law concerning privacy rights of surviving family members when it comes to death images of a decedent. This is not a right to be forgotten law as they wanted to characterize it, but merely a restriction of the way that First Amendment rights operate. Now, the right to be forgotten does not protect victims. Remediation already exists for everything they've pointed out. If a publication or website is publishing maliciously false information on you, there already exist processes to take that information down. Does mugshot websites already illegal in 18 states as of 2017, and that number's only increasing? Now the cyberbullying? That's being done by students who are in direct contact with that student. Just taking a link down from Google doesn't actually remove the video as I talked about earlier. These students will still be bullies. The right to be forgotten is also irrelevant to online security, as if you find your social security number on Google, all you have to do is Google, how to remove my social security number from Google, and Google already has a form to do that for you without the right to be forgotten. Now finally, the right to be forgotten does not ensure equal opportunity. Criminal registry databases exist in the status quo, and they're being used in Europe as well due to the right to be forgotten. So they can resolve none of their contensions. Thank you. I'm going to open for cross-ex. Everyone hear me? All right, kind of a big question. As a society, we consider protecting the innocent from wrongful imprisonment more important than catching every single guilty person. That's why, for example, we know the phrase, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty, rather than the reverse. Now consider privacy. The question is, why should we assume that people's personal information is public information until proven otherwise? Should our default position be that personal information stays private? Well, because the entire point is that all that stuff is already becoming public information via Google. Secondly, you aren't not making it public information. That information still exists on the internet. We just say that the majority of the public uses Google to find information. I'd say that that's kind of a broad statement. For example, in the context of employers, you think the only vetting process that employers do is just Google their employee, and they're like, ah, checks out, we're good. Sure. They go through multiple criminal registry databases as well. Sure. Okay, another question. So you expressed concern about the centralization of power with Google, and how it's not very reliable. So in particular, like, Google can take down content at will, you're saying? Yes, they can. Because they're a private company. So why would providing legal restrictions and rules and guidelines Google's actions, how would they give them more power? The point is, is that all those examples that I brought up about how interns and software engineers are handling the legality of these contexts, those are all from the EU, thanks to their right to be forgotten law, that you said we should model. These are direct consequences of Google having that power granted to them by the law that you're endorsing. Sure. My question is, if they can already do it, how would adding a legal right. They can do it in the EU, thanks to the right to be forgotten. I'm talking about America. Okay. They can also do it in America, right? They're a type of corporation. They can take down whatever results they want. This process doesn't exist in America. Otherwise, if America had the right to be forgotten, this debate wouldn't be happening. But okay, like the those processes are explicitly endowed to Google because of the right to be forgotten. Last question. You say that Nikki's family had their problems solved by the legal battle, right? Are the images still available online? Or rather, can you search for them and find them? Not on Google now, but the point being is that the right to be forgotten would not actually purge those images from the internet, but just simply remove those links from Google, meaning it's the same thing that's happened in the status quo. Thank you. Are my opponents ready? Great. Imagine living 25 years ago before the internet age. What if you were told at that time that one day a massive database would house thousands of pieces of information about every American, information about their friends and family members, about their political affiliations and media preferences, even about your favorite CAD videos? If I told you such a database would exist, how would you react? This is our world today. The only thing more unsettling than the ease with which people can find out the most intimate details of our personal lives is the lack of an adequate legal framework to deal with this reality. My opponent's suggestion to the contrary, this debate is not about whether individuals have any legal recourse against the publication of information about them. We clearly have some kinds of recourse now. The real question of this debate, who should shoulder the burden of justification and disputes over whether information is private or public? Our opponents place this burden on the individuals. Individuals have to defend their privacy against corporations against Google. We, on the other hand, believe that it's the burden of the companies to explain why personal information falls within the public domain. That is why we believe the right to be forgotten should be a civil right. Let me defend my partner's case. IU wants you to believe that Nicky's parents were redeemed, but know some of money removes the suffering they felt because these images remained online for so long. More importantly, the only reason Nicky's photos aren't online is because California passed their own version of the right to be forgotten. Her case was used to form the law. In effect, IU is agreeing that the right to be forgotten works, but we still need it in 49 other states. In response to our point about the need to protect victims, our opponent brought up the fact that 18 states already banned mugshot websites. This is also in keeping with the spirit of our side of the debate. If the right to be forgotten were a civil right, there would be more protection beyond these 18 states. They then claimed that much cyberbullying happens away from Google, but Google is responsible for 40% of the internet traffic and 90% of online searches are conducted through Google in America. This also answers their point about how information can stay online, even if it's not listed in search results. Google is the heart of the online world. Giving individuals some say about what comes up when you Google them can help students like the one Ben mentioned, students who spend time at a psychiatric ward because the video is easy to Google. Millions of teenagers experience cyberbullying, and some take their lives because of it. The right to be forgotten would grant them some control over what information can be found about them online. To our second point, they mentioned that Google already has policies to remove social security numbers. That's great, but notice who they saddle the burden on in this matter. They make individuals responsible for fighting Google's mistakes. If a right to be forgotten were invoked, then individuals would be empowered to prevent these actions from happening in the first place instead of having to deal with them after they occur. Against our point about equal opportunity, they make it sound really simple and easy for individuals to just delete what they don't want online, but you can't just delete your mugshot photo based on a false arrest. You can't just delete inaccurate or damaging information online. And if you could, there's nothing to prevent the images from being reposted. Under the right to be forgotten, individuals would have more protections. They tell you that employers could buy this data even if there were a right to be forgotten. This is false. A 2006 survey of executive recruits found that 77% of companies use search engines to learn about candidates. And remember, our Harvard study found that much of this information yielded by these searches is inaccurate. To keep misinformation from causing people to be denied employment, we need a right to be forgotten. Now, let me adjust my opponent's points. Their first point was that the right to be forgotten is censorship. Taking that false damaging information, however, is not censorship. We have libel laws for the exact same reason. The right to be forgotten simply reestablishes a reasonable sense of privacy and a right to control our public identity. Besides, less than 5% of requests to take that information concern the press and of the 5%, only 19% are approved. This is good. If the press publishes false or private information, we ought to have some recourse. Their second point was about giving Google too much power. We agree, Google's power should be lessened, but the right to be forgotten is the solution, not the cause of the problem. By establishing a civil right, Google would have to follow legal restrictions and make appeals through our court system. Updating the online world to match the legal protections of the offline world benefits everyone. Their third point was that the right to be forgotten shields criminals, but the statistic that they brought up were about requests, not approved requests. According to Google's own 2015 transparency report, less than 1% of the overall total number of granted requests involved serious crimes, public figures, political figures, or child protections. These requests are approved to protect victims, incidental witnesses, or the private lives of public personas. Let me leave you with this thought. Human beings deserve basic freedoms and protections, including a sense of privacy. We deserve some control over when we enter the public realm. Today, that sense of control is being stripped away and with it, so is the sense of dignity that comes with it. Because we support the empowerment of individuals to control their public identity, my partner and I are proud to affirm the right to be forgotten ought to be a civil right. Thank you. All right, can everyone hear me? Good. Are you ready? Yep. All right. So you mentioned in the cyber bullying case, a lot of these peers, the way that I'm unsure how many people have been victims of bullying, but it's through people in their school sharing that video amongst themselves. Would the right to be forgotten prevent peers from texting that video to each other? No, it wouldn't. And right to be forgotten can't be inclusive of everything, but this isn't a reason to negate. We have to try as much as possible, too. So in examples, are you saying it doesn't take down harmful information? This information that I'm about to read out is from Lee Munson, who's a writer and manager of BH Consulting, citing instances from the Guardian and the BBC, which were taken down. A story about a pedophile who kidnapped an 11-year-old girl with learning difficulties before abusing and murdering her was removed from search results. Was that the pedophile's right to have that removed? Definitely not, and I'm with you there, but this is less than 1% if we actually look at those things. Why is this okay? Why is just having 1% of pedophiles being forgotten about existing and then having them allowing them to get away with these crimes functionally by not making them publicly accountable, why is that worth it? If you can't resolve the interpersonal bullying that's happening. Because there's way too many victims of crimes that are wrongfully accused, social security numbers online. Okay, so actually let's talk about the social security numbers. So the process through which you remove the social security numbers from Google is by saying to Google that you just click a button on a form and say this is my social security number, please take it down. How is that any different than the way that the right to be forgotten forms work in the EU? Because the question of today's debate is not focused around whether or not something can actually happen The real question of this debate is whether or not it ought to be a civil right. And sure, social security number there is a process to remove it on Google, but the question of today's debate is whether or not it ought to be a civil right. Are you saying that the way that the right is implemented is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it ought to be? Oh, it's not irrelevant, but... Well, that's why I'm asking you about the process. How is this resolved? Because civil right establishes firmly that social security numbers shouldn't be removed from Google. Remember, Google isn't obligated by the law to do this. They already have the firm policy to do this. Right, but they're not obligated by the law to do it. That's why we have rights. Before I start this rebuttal, I would like to take a moment to thank our gracious host, Perdue, and specifically the Perdue Debate Program, for having us today. We're very glad to be here, so thank you for that. I will start with the three C's of the right to be forgotten. Censorship, centralization, and criminals. These three C's of the right to be forgotten will utterly destroy the freedoms of inquiry and information that we value and get from the use of the internet. To our own case, which we firmly extend, the right to be forgotten will ultimately become a tool to be twisted by those powerful enough and smart enough to use it. We gave the example of the CEO of Merrill Lynch, who used it to mask the fact that he gave himself a $10 billion bonus in the middle of a financial crisis. The same was used in the case of criminals, and we gave data from the CEO of Google himself that specifically 31% of these right to be forgotten cases are in fraud and scam, 20% are from violent crime, and 12% are specifically child pornography convictions that criminals want to remove from the internet. This is a huge proportion of how this law is being used to mask the people that should be required to account for their past. Our opponents today want to construct a world where no one is held accountable for the mistakes they have made in the past, which means that no one will have to answer to their crimes in the future. This is something we can simply not allow. Now I will turn to my opponent's case. Specifically, we can reject the right to be forgotten if legal recourse does exist, and we can avoid the negative consequences by not implementing the right to be forgotten. Specifically, who should bear the burden of privacy? We're saying this goes directly to our point of overburdening Google, and specifically centralizing power in the hands of people like Google interns. In cross-examination, our opponents mentioned that Google had to hire new people in order to handle the massive influx of cases of the right to be forgotten. This means that they were training people, add hawk, adding new people to their payrolls, without thoroughly making sure that these cases are handled properly. It's important to note that in EU law, the right to be forgotten and what gets taken down from the internet is decided based upon what information is of interest to the public. This means that we have a private corporation like Google hiring interns to decide what information you, the public, should be allowed to see. This is simply a huge oversight that means we will have mistakes being made, and multiple cases of the right to be forgotten actually masking the important information that the public needs to see. This goes directly to our censorship point and answers pretty much all of their flow, all of their arguments about employment. Specifically, censorship is important because it masks the right to information that people should have in order to make correct decisions. And when we're talking about someone like the CEO of Merrill Lynch, if you made the massive mistake of creating a financial crisis and then giving yourself a bonus afterwards, this should disqualify you from future employment. This ability to censor the information on the internet means that people can hide their crimes, ones that they should be rightfully asked to answer to, and then going to their examples of decreasing Google's power in the right to be forgotten. This is frankly not true. They've already admitted that Google is the one who handles every single one of these cases. Now I'd also like to point you to an example. Imagine if Facebook were the one to handle all of these cases. We've already seen a massive mishandling of Facebook's data and privacy usage. Now imagine that they are the ones responsible for removing all of the important search results and deciding what information was in the public interest. Facebook has already decided to try to do this through their algorithms that give you a newsfeed and they've created a massive democratic crisis in the process. And specifically, when Google handles all of these cases, there is a financial incentive for them to approve things to be taken down from the internet. It's easier, much easier for a Google intern to approve the right to be forgotten and remove a search result than it is to reject it and face the possibility of a lengthy and costly legal battle in which potentially 2% of Google's worldwide revenues could be at stake if the court finds against them. That is a massive financial burden for a company to bear, which means that they will not censor which cases get approved and which don't. They will simply make these choices on the facts of financial burden alone. This finally brings me to the last point of criminals. I've already talked a bit about this, but it's very important to emphasize the fact of how many of these cases come from people with criminal records that they should be asked to answer to. Our opponents will like to construct this debate today saying merely that the right to be forgotten should exist as a legal framework for those who will use it for good. But we cannot forget that this is not the majority of cases. There's a reason that they can only give three examples in their first affirmative constructive. It's that more often than not, this right to be forgotten masks people who should be asked to answer to their past. Thank you. Can everyone hear me? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Are you ready? Yeah, go ahead. Great. Are you aware that the Maryland CEO wasn't delisted? I believe he was. Yes, we have evidence that points to the fact that his information was taken off of Google search results and it was specifically an article about his crimes in the Guardian that was removed. So are you aware that your source actually redacted their statement and said it was actually a comment that was actually redacted, not the remove, not the actual? I'm very certain that that's not true. Okay. Could you state your statistic with the percentage of criminals like with the requests? Certainly. This is directly from the CEO of Google. I'll remind you that this is the only person with actual accurate information on this. What's the source on that? Is it just Google? Is that all you have? It was an interview with the CEO of Google. Who hosted the interview? Yeah, Cam can get you the source. Here's the inner one I see. Specifically, it was 30% of these cases were requests to remove accounts of fraud and scam. The Financial Times hosting interview. So a very reputable source. 31% were fraud and scam. 20% were violent crime. 12% were child pornography convictions. That means people trying to cover up the fact that they have done heinous things in the past and should be required to account for them in the future. The people on the sexual offender registry will stay on the sexual offender registry, right? Yes. Last question. In your case with Facebook, wouldn't the civil right guide what stays on and off like what's removed and what's not instead of their own guidelines? That's not how the right to be forgotten has been implemented in the EU and I don't see a differentiation here. Could you further explain that? Yes. I don't think that having it stated as a civil right would help guide Facebook interns to decide what's in the public interest and what's not. Facebook has notoriously poor decision on what's in the public interest. Okay. Thank you. All right. There's a couple things that we need to clear up over the disputes that just happened and then I'll get into some closing remarks. First of all, unfortunately, there's a bit of inaccurate information that's been provided so far. The marijuana story is indeed a fake news story. If you search right now for the salon article that reports on it, the own author of the source that they're talking about says that the article was never delisted for the marijuana CEO. You can also prove this by going on an EU website and finding the information. What happened was that a random guy who used the public comment section didn't like the information that was there and asked to delist himself. So this information they're talking about, it still exists because it's relevant information. Remember, we're only taking down irrelevant information. The stories they're talking about, they're not real. The second one again is unfortunately just not correct. We can look to the Financial Times report that they're talking about. We read the interview with Larry Page before this debate. Not once has he ever talked about the statistics they're talking about. It only comes from a website called something like searchonlinedomain.com. It's not very reputable. In fact, we look to the Guardian's report, who they also value as a credible source, and Google's own data that was released to the public finds that less than 1% of data requests even come from people like criminals or child-related actions and even then over 80% of them are denied. So we can see that in almost every single case, what's being taken down is something that is in fact irrelevant, inadequate, excessive, or inaccurate to my identity or to your identity. In the end, we can look at today's debate as two worlds. There's the affirmative world where we do have a right to be forgotten, and there's the negative world where we do not have a right to be forgotten. In our world, individuals have control of their information. Their security is protected. We don't have to hope that Google is going to take down social security numbers when we know that the right is enamored into our legislation, and we can guarantee that our security is protected. Cyberbullying and harassment is lessened or even prevented. We can't always guarantee. Teenagers will be teenagers. But if someone searches your name later on, it would be nice if that damaging information wasn't there anymore when it never deserved to be in the public sphere in the first place. In our world, the law also protects and curbs the power of Google. They talk about right now how private corporations are able to do things ad hoc when they talk about how Facebook is not a very good arbiter of correct information. What we're telling you is that by establishing a law that gives a court system and legal precedent for how to go about this information, we check on private corporations to make sure that they aren't doling out information that shouldn't be out in the public in the first place. Lastly, in our world, individuals are able to live freely without their lifestyle choices ruining their chance of employment. They haven't responded to this, and it's very key. Most people use Google. We all use Google to find our information. Employers 76% of the time also use Google to find background checks. They're punishing people for lifestyle choices that aren't relevant to their professional credentials, and they don't even know that they're not able to find employment. Ultimately, we're simply updating the online world to match the protections in the offline world that already exist. We're restoring the balance between your public and private life. Now let's compare their world. The negative world will not have the right to be forgotten. It's mostly fear mongering. The sex offenders still remain on the sex registry offender list, and they don't actually get delisted because these stories are simply making up information. Politicians' information still stays unless it's defamatory, and that's good, or if it's inaccurate information on politicians. And again, that's good. Lastly, additionally, their world also allows for lies and damaging information to cause millions of people to suffer. Even if we accept the case that one intern slipped through the cracks and let one person who harmed somebody get away and expunged the information from a Google search, it's still the case that millions and millions of Americans are being wrongfully affected, and we have a better interest in protecting the innocent than making sure we stop the guilty person every single time. So it's a good reason to affirm. Lastly, we don't want to put the burden on victims to defend themselves. The whole point of our government and our laws is to protect us and prevent these damaging actions from happening in the first place. Because of all these reasons, we believe that the right to be forgotten indeed ought to be a civil right. Thank you. Need I remind you of the three C's of the right to be forgotten? Censorship, centralization, and criminals. Now, first I'll address those supposed misunderstandings or what they are claiming us to be falsehoods. Our sources are not falsehoods, and it's not a salon article. In fact, we explicitly cited how it was four different BBC articles that were taken down because, you know, that's actually in the EU, and that's how they are taken down due to the EU's right to be forgotten. These are from a true source on the CEO of Merrill Lynch, functionally giving himself a bonus for causing the financial crisis. These sorts of scummy behavior are the sorts of things that Google interns do take down because our opponents have not sufficiently addressed our main reason for why Google interns are so bad at this. It's because there's a financial incentive for them to be bad at it. There is only a legal and financial cost to Google for rejecting these applications. There is no cost to Google for accepting these applications. As Victoria rightfully pointed out, potentially two percent of Google's revenue could be forfeit if they made a wrongful rejection, but no such financial penalty exists if they make a wrongful acceptance. The examples that we were given, for example, like the bank teller who stole money from elderly people's bank accounts, or the pedophile who kept an 11-year-old chained up in his basement and tortured her and raped her and then murdered her. These things were never punished by Google, and in fact they had an incentive to purge them. Now that sort of power should not be vested within private companies, but especially not interns. And as to addressing my opponent's point, as to how this right to be forgotten would remove authority from Google. This is very clearly not the case, as all of our examples are from how the EU implemented the right to be forgotten. The policy that they are advocating for, this clearly shows that this is directly a result of that and not an absence of it, as that is quite frankly incoherent. Addressing the way that social security numbers to be taken down. The way that the status quo handles this is no different or places no more burden upon you or upon Google than the right to be forgotten. It is still a form. You Google how to remove my social security number from Google and it says, hey, was your social security number on Google? Just give us a link to the website, tell us your name, and then we'll take it down. That already exists. That is not a significant burden upon the people who are fearful of identity theft. There is no need for the right to be forgotten, to be in place, and to potentially allow these pedophiles and criminals to slip through the cracks of public recognition just to remediate a process that already exists. Lastly, their point on bullying and other digital interpersonal conflicts. That bullying still occurs. Yes, anonymous people on the internet can be a pain. However, I think that we all know both either from personal experience or hearing about it that a lot of bullying, in fact, the most impactful bullying comes from the people that your child is in school with every day. The right to be forgotten would not address that as they themselves admit in cross-examination. The right to be forgotten would not stop those peers from sending that video to each other and making fun of it. It doesn't address this at all. So, need I pose you that question again? Why would we take the risk with the right to be forgotten centralizing in the hand of the power of Google interns potentially allowing criminals to slip from the cracks and censoring good reputable newspapers from the public eye all for processes that already exist or for not helping cyber bullying at all. These processes are not redressed through the right to be forgotten, as pointed out through the mug shots example as well. Eight to 18 states have already made these mug shots illegal, and it's not because of the right to be forgotten. It's because it's extortion, which it clearly is, but that's why these states are taking it down. It's not the right to be forgotten. The right to be forgotten was only a misstep for the EU that has created far more power to Google interns who are poorly paid, poorly trained, and have no incentive to actually vet that information. Lastly, they mentioned that those people are still on the sex offender registry. Yes, some are. However, isn't it better to have that information more publicly accessible? Isn't it better to always be more aware of the threats and dangers that lie at home? That's the question that I pose you. Thank you. I'd like to thank all of our participants in tonight's debate, especially Victoria Cameron and their coach, Brian DeLong, for driving all the way up from Bloomington just to participate in a debate with us. This event was the first in a series of events that are being done in association with Senator Mark Warren's policy proposal, which is on cybersecurity. So we're hoping to do a bunch of events under the 158th anniversary and Mark Warner's proposal, and ideally it'll culminate with him visiting. It turns out it's hard to like plan with a senator. They're busy. But that's the hope, and you can find out more information about that online. A more pertinent piece of information is how to vote for this debate. So I believe you can go to takegiantleaps.com and then forward slash live stream, and then another forward slash, and it'll tell you how to send a text message to indicate who you think won this debate. And then those results will be made public at 8.30 in the morning tomorrow. I think the voting window is open until 7.30 tonight, so you have some time to sort of chew on it or think it over. But that should wrap it up. Please join me in giving another warm round of applause thanking our contestants, and have a great evening.