[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).Â
>
>
> 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'sÂ
>
> Â
>
> <quote>
>
> In 2010 Mario Costeja González, a Spanish national, lodged with the
> Agencia Española deÂ
>
> Protección de Datos (Spanish Data Protection Agency, the AEPD) a
> complaint against LaÂ
>
> Vanguardia Ediciones SL (the publisher of a daily newspaper with a
> large circulation in Spain, inÂ
>
> particular in Catalonia) and against Google Spain and Google Inc. Mr
> Costeja González contendedÂ
>
> that, when an internet user entered his name in the search engine of
> the Google group (â GoogleÂ
>
> Searchâ ), the list of results would display links to two pages of La
> Vanguardiaâ s newspaper, ofÂ
>
> January and March 1998. Those pages in particular contained an
> announcement for a real-estateÂ
>
> auction organised following attachment proceedings for the recovery of
> social security debts owedÂ
>
> by Mr Costeja González.Â
>
> Â
>
> With that complaint, Mr Costeja González requested, first, that La
> Vanguardia be required either toÂ
>
> remove or alter the pages in question (so that the personal data
> relating to him no longerÂ
>
> appeared) or to use certain tools made available by search engines in
> order to protect the data.Â
>
> Second, he requested that Google Spain or Google Inc. be required to
> remove or conceal theÂ
>
> personal data relating to him so that the data no longer appeared in
> the search results and in theÂ
>
> links to La Vanguardia. In this context, Mr Costeja González stated
> that the attachmentÂ
>
> proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of
> years and that reference toÂ
>
> them was now entirely irrelevant.Â
>
> Â
>
> The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, taking the view
> that the information inÂ
>
> question had been lawfully published by it. On the other hand, the
> complaint was upheld asÂ
>
> regards Google Spain and Google Inc. The AEPD requested those two
> companies to take theÂ
>
> necessary measures to withdraw the data from their index and to render
> access to the dataÂ
>
> impossible in the future. Google Spain and Google Inc. brought two
> actions before the AudienciaÂ
>
> Nacional (National High Court, Spain), claiming that the AEPDâ s
> decision should be annulled. It isÂ
>
> in this context that the Spanish court referred a series of questions
> to the Court of Justice.Â
>
> Â
>
> [The ECJ then summarizes its interpretation. Basically Google can be
> treated as a data controller and ...]
>
> Â
>
> ... Â theÂ
>
> Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to
> remove links to web pagesÂ
>
> that are published by third parties and contain information relating to
> a person from the list ofÂ
>
> results displayed following a search made on the basis of that personâ
> s name. The Court makes itÂ
>
> clear that such an obligation may also exist in a case where that name
> or information is not erasedÂ
>
> beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the
> case may be, when itsÂ
>
> publication in itself on those pages is lawful.Â
>
> Â
>
> Finally, in response to the question whether the directive enables the
> data subject to request thatÂ
>
> links to web pages be removed from such a list of results on the
> grounds that he wishes theÂ
>
> information appearing on those pages relating to him personally to be â
> forgottenâ after a certainÂ
>
> time, the Court holds that, if it is found, following a request by the
> data subject, that the inclusion ofÂ
>
> those links in the list is, at this point in time, incompatible with
> the directive, the links andÂ
>
> 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