[okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling

[Anna Daniel]

>
> the original publication and the search engine are considered separately:
> the public record of a newspaper may not be deleted even if the link to it
> from a search website is removed."
>

that's the bit I'm struggling with :-)


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew at generalist.org.uk>wrote:

> On 20 May 2014 07:22, Tony Bowden <tony.bowden at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Applying hard and fast "it's public so it's public forever" rules
> sound great until you start looking at the fuzzy edges ;-).
>
> Things like the rehabilitation laws are a very good example of this -
> certainly in the UK, it boils down to "yes, it's still technically
> public, and you can tell people about it, but you can't force them to
> disclose it and you can't make a big fuss about it if you're motivated
> by malice". Lots of nuance there without ever saying "it's secret
> now".
>
> But, of course, it relies on an analogue age when you wouldn't know
> about this without actively going out and looking for it. Privacy
> through inertia and obscurity. Our concepts of privacy have been built
> up around this idea of things that are "public" but only in the
> proverbial dusty filing cabinet, and we're still having to get used to
> the idea that things which were previously obscure are obscure no
> longer, without ever having technically changed the way in which
> they're "public". This is simply the most recent manifestation of it.
>
> On which note...
>
> I've just seen a set of notes on this ruling from the UK Information
> Commissioner's Office, the body responsible for (inter alia)
> overseeing data protection & the security of personal information, and
> will be one of the people to who challenged cases get referred:
>
>
> http://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/four-things-weve-learned-from-the-eu-google-judgment/
>
> A key note to bear in mind:
>
> "There are some who are seeking to draw out much wider implications of
> the judgment for freedom of expression in general.  It is important to
> keep the implications in proportion and recognise that there is no
> absolute right to have links removed. Also, the original publication
> and the search engine are considered separately: the public record of
> a newspaper may not be deleted even if the link to it from a search
> website is removed."
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
>   andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140522/bcc3fc44/attachment-0002.html>