By SITI YUNIARTI (August 2026)
The topic of the Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) was one of the subjects presented by the author in a training session for district court judges organized by the Judicial Commission. In the same training, the discussion on RTBF was also part of an ethics discussion delivered by Prof. Shidarta, Professor of Legal Philosophy at BINUS University. RTBF has become relevant to the judicial function because, normatively, both the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE) and the Personal Data Protection Law (UU PDP) contain provisions that embody RTBF characteristics. Therefore, in practice, RTBF can be part of the matters petitioned or litigated through the courts.
RTBF represents an issue in the relationship between humans and technology. In the author’s view, RTBF is a form of implementable protection for humans in the digital space. However, much like the complexity of privacy itself, RTBF is not a simple concept. This writing is not intended to answer all of these complexities, but rather to serve as an introductory overview to understanding RTBF within the context of a digital society.
As the author often emphasizes in teaching materials regarding law and technology, information and communications technology, particularly the internet, enables the exchange and dissemination of information to take place rapidly, in real time, and with an immense reach. In an analog society, information could fade over time due to the limited scope of its dissemination. Information that once circulated could vanish from social memory because it was no longer talked about, searched for, or easily retrieved.
The situation is different in a digital society. The internet allows information to be stored, duplicated, distributed, indexed, and retrieved through search engines. While a digital footprint is not always technically permanent, it possesses a persistent nature. In other words, the author can say that in the digital space, humans may change and age, but information about them can continue to appear as though it is forever new.
As a concept, RTBF evolved within a prolonged discourse concerning the relationship between privacy and the right to information. On one hand, every individual holds an interest in protecting their privacy, dignity, and reputation. On the other hand, the public also holds an interest in accessing information, especially when such information pertains to public interest, accountability, or freedom of expression. Consequently, RTBF cannot be understood as an absolute right. Its implementation invariably requires a balance between individual protection, namely privacy, and the public interest, namely the right to information. The balance between the two constitutes part of the classic debate surrounding privacy, freedom of expression, and the public’s right to information.
Normatively, RTBF secured a clearer standing within European Union law through the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), particularly via the concept of the right to erasure. However, before the GDPR came into effect, RTBF had already garnered major attention through the landmark case Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González in 2014. In that dispute, Mario Costeja González requested that Google remove links to an old notice in a Spanish newspaper concerning a property auction tied to social security debts in 1998. The publication of that information was initially lawful. Yet, after many years, it was deemed no longer relevant if it continued to appear in search results under his name. The court subsequently ordered the search engine operator to de-list specific links appearing in search results generated under Mario Costeja González’s name.
Put simply, from the brief explanation above, RTBF can be understood as a concept that safeguards human privacy in the digital realm, which has progressively translated into the terminology of the right to erasure, restriction of processing, de-listing, or de-indexing. A similar approach can be observed in Indonesian law. The UU ITE and its implementing regulations adopt an approach of removing irrelevant Electronic Information and/or Electronic Documents using erasure and de-listing mechanisms. Meanwhile, the Personal Data Protection Law places RTBF aspects within the framework of data subjects’ rights in the processing of their personal data.
This varied scope illustrates that RTBF is a complex concept. RTBF cannot simply be interpreted as the mere deletion of data concerning an individual; rather, it relates to how the law assesses the continued processing, retention, and accessibility of information, especially within the digital space. On the other hand, RTBF must not be utilized as a tool to erase accountability simply because certain information damages an individual’s reputation. Therefore, the implementation of RTBF requires clear parameters to maintain proportionality between individual interests and the public interest. A lack of clarity regarding proportionality parameters could cause RTBF to harm one of the two: the individual right to privacy or the public right to information. (***)
This article is a translation of the following Indonesian article: https://business-law.binus.ac.id/2026/08/10/right-to-be-forgotten-dalam-masyarakat-digital-suatu-pengantar/
