[okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling

Mon May 19 17:22:56 UTC 2014

The Guardian article led me to ask here. Marc Stephens is independent chair
of the Global Network Initiative
<https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/>which lists Google and
Facebook among participants. The fact that he
doesn't mention this left me doubting the whole article (maybe an
overreaction, but it is a bit one-sided I find).

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Duncan Edwards <D.Edwards at ids.ac.uk> wrote:

>  There was an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday by Mark
> Stephens entitled “only the powerful will benefit from the ‘right to be
> forgotten’”
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/powerful-benefit-right-to-be-forgotten
>
>
>
> I was particularly struck by: “*Google's content removal transparency
> report records how government officials around the world already seek to
> remove search results and other online content that threatens their
> position*”.
>
>
>
> Duncan
>
>
>
> *From:* okfn-discuss [mailto:okfn-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Rufus Pollock
> *Sent:* 19 May 2014 17:21
> *To:* Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: [okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling
>
>
>
> 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
>
>   This message is for the addressee only and may contain privileged or
> confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify
> the sender immediately and delete the original. Any views or opinions
> expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
> those of IDS. Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex,
> Brighton BN1 9RE Tel: +44 (0)1273 606261; Fax: +44 (0)1273 621202 IDS, a
> charitable company limited by guarantee: Registered Charity No. 306371;
> Registered in England 877338; VAT No. GB 350 899914
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140519/96e2da86/attachment-0002.html>