[okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling

Tue May 20 23:13:51 UTC 2014

yes Tony I certainly agree with your points re archiving/removal of content
- no change there is suggested. If they put it in the public sphere (as per
their governance framework) it should stay in the public sphere. But the
case:

The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia [newspaper article on
> the case], 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.
>

if the newspaper article is allowed to stay public then why can't the
search engine result that points to it?

Anyone republishing information — even just in a passing reference to it —
> is already open to lots of legal challenges in most jurisdictions anyway
> (e.g. libel).
>
yes, this is what I take issue with.  But it's usually the newspaper not
the search engine?

A.

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tony Bowden <tony.bowden at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 May 2014 02:06, Anna Daniel <a.daniel at griffith.edu.au> wrote:
> >  My position is that a fact is a fact and should remain so.
>
> Most facts don't fall into the "universally true for all time"
> category. This isn't just pedantry — a lot of the discussion in this
> area comes down to this sort of framing. We naturally treat some facts
> as having an obvious time component, but generally aren't as good at
> doing so with classes of information with a longer half life.
>
> > If it's been released into the public sphere it should stay there.
>
> Many countries already have laws that recognise a value in allowing
> information to decay — e.g. expunged records or spent convictions
> under Rehabilitation of Offenders laws. There are certainly
> interesting technical challenges to achieving things like this in
> practice, but that doesn't mean that the underlying goal isn't a
> worthwhile one.
>
> > Secondly, putting the
> > liability onto intermediaries rather than content owner (person/entity
> who
> > made the decision to make the data public) is a dangerous precedent
>
> Anyone republishing information — even just in a passing reference to
> it — is already open to lots of legal challenges in most jurisdictions
> anyway (e.g. libel). I don't believe anyone is claiming that the
> intermediaries must proactively decide what they can and can't publish
> — simply that (as with lots of other areas), once their attention is
> drawn to problematic material, they have to remove it.
>
> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Kind regards,
Anna Daniel, PhD.
Information Policy
Griffith University

t.: 0439 061 834 | a.daniel at griffith.edu.au
I ascribe to the email charter: http://emailcharter.org
Disclaimer*:* this information is provided for general guidance only and
does not constitute legal advice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-discuss/attachments/20140521/09552e93/attachment-0002.html>