In the last week, we've received two related requests. The first one came from the subject of a recent Citizen story, who changed his mind after the story was published and wanted his name and comments removed.
The second came from an individual who wants his name struck from an obituary for another person that appeared in The Citizen more than two years ago.
We turned down both requests.
In the first case, the person agreed to an interview with a Citizen reporter and had the right to refuse to answer some or all of the questions posed in that interview.
While Citizen reporters usually refuse to allow sources to read a story before it is published, they will normally agree (deadline permitting) to read back quotes and other information collected that will be attributed to the source in the story.
Once the story is published, the source can call to complain that facts were incorrect or a statement was misquoted. If there is merit to that complaint, The Citizen publishes a correction in its print edition, which usually appears under a Making It Right headline, and fixes the online version of its story.
Asking for the entire story to be removed or the sections of the story featuring just the source can't happen without some compelling legal or moral reason.
From a legal standpoint, the story is the property of The Citizen, which holds copyright protection over its published content. It doesn't belong to the individuals named in the story or to the sources who provided information for the story.
Just because a source regrets, for whatever reason, providing on-the-record quotes and information to a reporter that is later used in a story is not a compelling enough excuse for The Citizen or any news media outlet to pull the story.
In our case, more than 9,000 copies of the story appeared in the print edition and were physically distributed across the community. The story, as with all our stories, was shared on our website and promoted through our social media channels.
Asking for it to abruptly disappear after publication is the equivalent of wanting back a pebble dropped into the still waters of a pond and every ripple the pebble created as a result.
The same goes for the individual wanting his name out of the obituary.
That case is further complicated by the fact the obituary still exists in the Citizen's digital archive at the Prince George Public Library. For historical reasons, neither The Citizen or the library should be quick to make revisions to the published record.
The solution offered by The Citizen to this individual was to contact Google. A formal application to them can lead to the ubiquitous search engine agreeing to drop certain links displayed when that person's name is entered, on the basis of privacy. That would do plenty to meet this individual's request of reducing his "digital footprint."
That effort for most people would be the equivalent of King Canute trying to hold back the waves from reaching the shore.
This individual contacted The Citizen through an email account hosted by Microsoft. Unless that person fabricated an identity when creating the account, an American company that has to follow the terms of the Patriot Act when asked to turn over data to the federal government has his personal information. Even if he used a fake identity, information can still be gleaned from his IP address, connecting him to a location and an Internet service provider.
Reducing one's digital footprint is far more complicated than asking for a name to come out of a newspaper story or an obituary.
Closing social media accounts on Facebook and elsewhere would barely scratch the surface.
To be connected in the modern world is to leave a digital footprint, somewhere, somehow, whether it's by sending emails and texts or shopping or banking online.
Every shopper reward card, credit card or debit card used creates a personal digital record around spending habits.
Even if all spending was done in cash, if the money is held in a bank or other financial institution, there is a digital record and a name attached to it recording deposits and withdrawals.
So even if a news story gets taken down or Google removes a link, the digital footprint isn't gone.
It's just been made less visible and harder to find.
It's still there, silently growing in size each day.
-- Managing editor Neil Godbout
