ShareThis Page
News

Sewickley Academy alum among winners of national competition

| Thursday, Aug. 4, 2016, 1:06 p.m.
Hayden Moyer, left, and Walter Stover. The two Allegheny College students were one of five teams to win the National 2016 Letters to an Elected Official competition sponsored by Project Pericles. Moyer, of Edgeworth, is a 2013 Sewickley Academy graduate.
submitted
Hayden Moyer, left, and Walter Stover. The two Allegheny College students were one of five teams to win the National 2016 Letters to an Elected Official competition sponsored by Project Pericles. Moyer, of Edgeworth, is a 2013 Sewickley Academy graduate.

Sparked by an interest in online privacy, a Sewickley Academy alum envisions a time when people can have questionable personal material removed from the internet.

Hayden Moyer, of Edgeworth, a 2013 Sewickley Academy graduate and junior at Allegheny College, was a member of one of five teams to win the National 2016 Letters to an Elected Official competition sponsored by Project Pericles.

Moyer, and his teammate Walter Stover, of Charlotte, N.C., both study economics at the Meadville college. A panel of judges selected the winning teams in that contest that promotes civic engagement.

The pair wrote to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) about online privacy, focusing on Europe's Right to be Forgotten, which allows citizens to petition things about themselves they deem unflattering online for potential removal.

“The reason that we chose this particular topic is because it's something that isn't available in the U.S. right now, so because it's happening now and it's still a very relevant topic for Europe and for us,” Moyer said.

As debates began becoming more mainstream, Moyer said “we thought we would serve as trailblazers in our generation's discussion of the topic.”

Along with their win comes $500 to be used in advancing their cause. Their plan is to create a website promoting digital privacy rights that serves as a database for cases supporting their mission. They're hoping this, along with their letter to Casey, will inspire legislative changes in the United States.

“The way the legislation would work, ideally, is that ... a citizen would be able to ask Google (and other search engines) to take this piece of web content out of their search engine. They have the right to accept or deny it,” Moyer said. “But they have to at least consider.”

Some examples of content that would be considered for removal includes sensitive personal information, “revenge pornography” and graphic photos that may disturb or upset based on the circumstances of the photo, according to the students.

“The whole point of the contest in general is ordinary citizens doing their homework in some kind of policy proposal, that civil discourse branching into some substantiated policy. The end goal when we were writing about this, which was to raise awareness for the issue and allow some kind of conversation to open and none yet in the U.S.,” Moyer said.

The pair learned through the experience that just because an issue is out there, does not mean that someone is already proactively trying to resolve it. When they found they were some of the first to start a push for legislation to monitor what search engines turn up, both of them were surprised.

“What it did help me understand was how to research public policy, and that can only be a good thing,” Moyer said.

Vince Russo is a Tribune-Review contributing writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me