[okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling

[Rufus Pollock]

Really glad you raised this as I'd been planning to email the list about
this. This is potentially a very big issue for open data and open knowledge.

I think we should be putting up a post about this and i'm interested in
what folks here think.

For those who haven't seen there's the official press release [1] plus lots
of news articles. Key section is below and below that I have some comments.

[1]:
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdfand
there's

<quote>
In 2010 Mario Costeja González, a Spanish national, lodged with the Agencia
Española de
Protección de Datos (Spanish Data Protection Agency, the AEPD) a complaint
against La
Vanguardia Ediciones SL (the publisher of a daily newspaper with a large
circulation in Spain, in
particular in Catalonia) and against Google Spain and Google Inc. *Mr
Costeja González contended *
*that, when an internet user entered his name in the search engine of the
Google group (‘Google *
*Search’), the list of results would display links to two pages of La
Vanguardia’s newspaper, of *
*January and March 1998. Those pages in particular contained an
announcement for a real-estate *
*auction organised following attachment proceedings for the recovery of
social security debts owed *
*by Mr Costeja González*.

With that complaint, Mr Costeja González requested, first, that La
Vanguardia be required either to
remove or alter the pages in question (so that the personal data relating
to him no longer
appeared) or to use certain tools made available by search engines in order
to protect the data.
*Second, he requested that Google Spain or Google Inc. be required to
remove or conceal the *
*personal data relating to him so that the data no longer appeared in the
search results and in the *
*links to La Vanguardia*. In this context, Mr Costeja González stated that
the attachment
proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years
and that reference to
them was now entirely irrelevant.

The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, taking the view that
the information in
question had been lawfully published by it. On the other hand, the
complaint was upheld as
regards Google Spain and Google Inc. The AEPD requested those two companies
to take the
necessary measures to withdraw the data from their index and to render
access to the data
impossible in the future. Google Spain and Google Inc. brought two actions
before the Audiencia
Nacional (National High Court, Spain), claiming that the AEPD’s decision
should be annulled. It is
in this context that the Spanish court referred a series of questions to
the Court of Justice.

[The ECJ then summarizes its interpretation. Basically Google can be
treated as a data controller and ...]

...  the
Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to
remove links to web pages
that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a
person from the list of
results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s
name. The Court makes it
clear that *such an obligation may also exist in a case where that name or
information is not erased *
*beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case
may be, when its *
*publication in itself on those pages is lawful.*

Finally, in response to the question whether the directive enables the data
subject to request that
links to web pages be removed from such a list of results on the grounds
that he wishes the
information appearing on those pages relating to him personally to be
‘forgotten’ after a certain
time, the Court holds that, if it is found, following a request by the data
subject, that the inclusion of
those links in the list is, at this point in time, incompatible with the
directive, the links and
information in the list of results must be erased.
</quote>

This is really quite a big deal as:

a) it imposes potentially very substantial obligations on those who collect
and curate "public" (open) data
b) it could entitle people to have "public-interest" info taken down (e.g.
what about info that you were a director of a fraudulent company)

This issue also raises intriguing privacy vs transparency issues. After
all, the basis of the case was data protection (cf also the debate re the
recent directive update on the "right to be forgotten" point). In general,
one is instinctively supportive of the view that someone's personal picture
on facebook should not come back to haunt them 20y later.

However, here we are talking about "public-interest" info. Traditionally,
society has accepted that we transparency concerns trump privacy in a
variety of public interest areas: for example, one should be able to find
who are the directors of limited liability companies, or know the name of
one's elected representatives, or know who it is who was convicted of a
given crime (in most cases).

This ruling has the potential to seriously undermine this either in theory
or in fact.

In particular, whilst a company like Google may dislike this ruling they
have the resources ultimately to comply (in fact it may be good for them as
it will increase the barriers to entry!). But for open data projects this
creates substantial issues - for example, under this ruling it seems
possible that projects like Wikipedia, Poderopedia, OpenCorporares or even
OpenSpending will now have to deal with requests to remove information on
the basis of infringing on personal data protection even though the
information collected only derives from material published elsewhere and
has a clear public interest component.

Rufus


On 18 May 2014 23:15, martin biehl <odmartin at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> does anybody have a link to a good article on the supposed consequences of
> the recent EU "right to be forgotten" ruling? What is the open knowledge
> take on it?
>
> Cheers!
>
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140519/7dca5bf2/attachment-0002.html>