Forgetting is an inevitable function of the human brain. Despite the means in which information is obtained, it is literally impossible for one to remember everything which they have learned without external assistance. This point has constantly held true, though never has external assistance been as readily available as in our present day and age.
Mayer-Schönberger takes this quality of our society and attempts to break into it through the pages of his book, delete. Beginning the read with brief fear-invoking tales about two individuals, the author continues this theme throughout the duration of the novel. One of the two individuals, Stacy Snyder, is mentioned frequently throughout the book as an example of digital remembering gone wrong. Mayer-Schönberger outlines her refusal to graduate by Millersville University in May 2006, due to a drunken photo posted publicly on her MySpace page. Not only was this the fault of her own, but it is clear that Stacy wanted this photo shared, rather than deleted, or she would not have posted it publicly to the internet. What the author also fails to mention in the case of Stacy Snyder, is the her “ignorance of basic grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage — her inadequate classroom management, her poor understanding of the subjects she attempted to teach, and her inappropriate manner with students” brought to the forefront during the court case barring her from graduation. I believe that this is an important point to note so that the reader does not base the story purely on the controversial MySpace photo.
Referring to cases such as EPA’s unsafe public information, provides a good example of how information availability can provide negative effects, alongside its positives. Though I fully appreciated this example, Mayer-Schönberger next brings up the case of digitally storing medical files. He looks into the case in which a digitally remembered patient profile may cause uncertainty when multiple doctors look at another doctor’s recorded note. Stating that one doctor may not agree with another doctor’s point of view on certain behaviours does not in any way reflect a negative effect of digital remembering. This issue will always occur, despite the means to which information is recorded and shared. Stating that “perfect remembering exposes us to filtering, selection and interpretation challenges” (p.96) appears a highly irrelevant argument, when proposing that forgetting would provide a better outcome.
Further explored within the chapter “Of Power and Time” is the idea of companies storing personal data, and building information dossiers for each of their users. Upon visiting, individuals are agreeing to a website’s terms of service, which will generally specify what will occur with regards to provided user information. Mayer-Schönberger repeatedly refers to this as a loss of control over our information. However, if we are voluntarily handing that information over, is it really to be unexpected that control is lost? In my opinion, providing all of this information to various search engines and ad providers, especially when we are agreeing to do so, creates a more personalized and enjoyable web experience. While cases do exists, as the author mentions, in which a digital seller will inflate prices due to external information, this case splits down into part digital remembering, and part social engineering (which plays a more important role in the matter).
The story of John and Jane, mentioned in “Of Power and Time”, shows the author’s repeated opinion that forgetting various pieces of information would provide a better outcome than remembering. Stating that Jane “had apparently forgiven [John] to the point that she had even forgotten the conflict” (p.114) implies that forgetting an occurrence would have solved the issue. As mentioned with the transfer of doctor notes, Mayer-Schönberger seems to promote the loss of information as a solution. If Jane had wanted to forget about the incident altogether, as it is suggested, she could have very easily removed the email. This example uses poor conflict resolution between John and Jane to try and portray a negative side of digital remembering.
Chapter five of the book looks at six proposed means to avoiding the negatives of digital remembering. These cover areas from digital abstinence and DRM rights for information, to a mass cognitive shift, accepting technology into our society, and understanding the benefits and negatives which are brought to the table.
Finally, Mayer-Schönberger concludes the book, proposing his own solution to the negatives of digital remembering: expiring time stamps on personal data. This solution brings us right back to my aforementioned points in which the author promoted forgetting over remembering. Though I do not have a counter solution to this issue, which I am unsure actually exists, I believe that allowing our data to expire after a period of time would erase drastic amounts of the progress made through technological advancement. We finally have found a means in which data can be preserved for longer than the once-innovative written language, and an electronic timestamp would prove entirely counter intuitive to this.
References
Diamond, J. (2008) STACEY SNYDER v. MILLERSVILLE UNIVERSITY, et al. (Case No. 2:07-cv-01660-PD) Retrieved from The Washington Post website: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/Decision%202008.12.03.pdf