[okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling

William Waites ww at eris.okfn.org
Mon May 19 22:12:06 UTC 2014


I wonder how much they'll charge to be able to search the unredacted
version of the web... 

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:05:36AM +0200, Rayna wrote:
> Well, the Global Network Initiative lists Google and Facebook as it lists the
> Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights Watch and Index on Censorship ;)
> My guess is the guy is writing on his personal behalf.
> 
> Following up on Rufus's questions, I have another one: whether the verdict will
> include a provision making public interest outweigh personal desire. If not,
> we'll have to wait for a jurisprudence on this to perhaps use in the future...
> Yet that sounds too uncertain and risky because how can you prove something
> disappeared if you haven't seen it before it vanished? This is a rhetoric
> question, ofc.
> 
> Rayna
> 
> 
> 
> 2014-05-19 19:22 GMT+02:00 martin biehl <odmartin at gmx.de>:
> 
>     The Guardian article led me to ask here. Marc Stephens is independent chair
>     of the Global Network Initiative 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 â  only the powerful will benefit from the â  right
>         to be forgottenâ  â   http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may
>         /18/powerful-benefit-right-to-be-forgotten
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         I was particularly struck by: â  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
>         positionâ  .
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         Duncan
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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.
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         I think we should be putting up a post about this and i'm interested in
>         what folks here think.
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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.
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/
>         cp140070en.pdf and there's 
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         <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 (â  Google 
> 
>         Searchâ  ), the list of results would display links to two pages of La
>         Vanguardiaâ  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. 
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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. 
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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 AEPDâ  s
>         decision should be annulled. It is 
> 
>         in this context that the Spanish court referred a series of questions
>         to the Court of Justice. 
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         [The ECJ then summarizes its interpretation. Basically Google can be
>         treated as a data controller and ...]
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         ...  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 personâ 
>          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. 
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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 â
>           forgottenâ   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>
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         This is really quite a big deal as:
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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)
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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.
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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).
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         This ruling has the potential to seriously undermine this either in
>         theory or in fact.
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         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.
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         Rufus
> 
>         Â 
> 
>         On 18 May 2014 23:15, martin biehl <odmartin at gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>             Hi,
> 
>             Â 
> 
>             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?
> 
>             Â 
> 
>             Cheers!
> 
>             Â 
> 
>             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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> "Change l'ordre du monde plutôt que tes désirs."
> 
> http://me.hatewasabi.info/

> _______________________________________________
> 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





More information about the okfn-discuss mailing list