European court says Google must respect 'right to be forgotten'

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
European court says Google must respect 'right to be forgotten'

By By Foo Yun Chee | Reuters – 5 minutes ago




By Foo Yun Chee
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Internet companies can be made to remove irrelevant or excessive personal information from search engine results, Europe's top court ruled on Tuesday in a case pitting privacy campaigners against Google.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) upheld the complaint of a Spanish man who objected to the fact that Google searches on his name threw up links to a 1998 newspaper article about the repossession of his home.
The case highlighted the struggle in cyberspace between free speech advocates and supporters of privacy rights who say people should have the "right to be forgotten" - meaning that they should be able to remove their digital traces from the Internet.
It creates both technical challenges and potential extra costs for companies like Google, the world's no.1 search engine, and Facebook.
Google can be required to remove data that are "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed," said judges at the Luxembourg-based court. The ECJ said the rights of people whose privacy has been infringed outweighed the general public interest.
Google said it was disappointed with the ruling, which contradicted a non-binding opinion from the ECJ's court adviser last year that said deleting sensitive information from search results would interfere with freedom of expression.
"We are very surprised that it differs so dramatically from the Advocate General’s opinion and the warnings and consequences that he spelled out. We now need to take time to analyze the implications," said Google spokesman Al Verney.
The European Commission proposed in 2012 that people should have the "right to be forgotten" on the Internet. This was watered down by the European Parliament last year in favor of a "right to erasure" of specific information.
The proposal needs the blessing of the 28 European Union governments before it can become law. Google, Facebook and other Internet companies have lobbied against such plans, worried about the extra costs.
The issues of privacy and data protection in Europe have become all the more sensitive since a former U.S. intelligence contractor, Edward Snowden, leaked details last year of U.S. surveillance programs for monitoring vast quantities of emails and phone records worldwide.
EXTRA COSTS
Tuesday's court ruling will likely benefit ordinary people but not public figures, said Larry Cohen, a partner at law firm Latham & Watkins. "The ruling will help certain people hide their past, making it difficult to access certain information, but not when it concerns public figures, or people in whom there is a genuine public interest," he said.
"This will result in added costs for Internet search providers who will have to add to their take-down policies the means for removing links to an individual’s data, and develop criteria for distinguishing public figures from private individuals," he said.
The Spanish data protection agency said the case was one of 220 similar ones in Spain whose complainants want Google to delete their personal information from the Web.
"We are very satisfied that there is an end now to the ferocious resistance shown by the search engine to comply with the resolutions of the Spanish data protection agency in this matter," a spokeswoman for the agency said.
European Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said that the court ruling vindicated EU efforts to toughen up privacy rules.
"Companies can no longer hide behind their servers being based in California or anywhere else in the world," she said on her Facebook page, calling the judgment a "strong tailwind" for data protection reform.
Google suffered a previous privacy setback earlier this year when a German court ordered it to block search results in Germany linked to photos of a sex party involving former Formula One motor racing boss Max Mosley.
(Additional reporting by Harro ten Wolde in Frankfurt and Robert Hetz in Madrid; Editing by Adrian Croft and Mark Trevelyan)


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/european-c...;_ylg=X3oDMTBhdnVpNmo3BGxhbmcDZW4tQ0E-;_ylv=3
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,393
1,666
113
Another ruling by the EU which shows a complete contempt for free speech and which sends a sinister cold shiver down my spine.

Another reason why I'll be voting UKIP in the EUSSR elections on 22nd May. It's time Britain was free of this monstrosity.

Censored by the EU



Chillingly, an unelected European Union court yesterday granted people the right to demand that search engines remove links to any information about them that they do not like – even when it is entirely accurate.

The edict will allow the likes of debtors and dodgy car dealers and workmen to censor a chequered past, since there will be no way of finding the information.

Rightly, the Index on Censorship said: ‘This is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books.’

But then when has the unaccountable, suffocating EU machine ever cared about the public’s right to know?

 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,393
1,666
113
Does it suck being forced into the EU empire?

We weren't forced into it. We joined voluntarily of our own accord in 1973 when we thought it was merely a Common Market and merely to do with trade. Since then it has suddenly developed spine-chilling pretensions to be an anti-democratic, socialist Superstate with its own flag, currency, national anthem, armed forces, embassies, police force and president (of course, an UNELECTED president) - a Superstate which thumbs its nose up at freedom of speech, the will of the people and democracy and sinisterly which derides anyone who objects to it and the unelected moronic out-of-touch foreign bureaucrats who rule us as nothing more than a "bad European".

But it's easy to get out of it though - we just have to vote for it in the in/out referendum or vote UKIP or both.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,393
1,666
113
What kind or inbred halfwits would get tricked enmass?


They're not quite as halfwitted as those halfwits in Canada who see the EUSSR as a good thing and want Canada to join even AFTER it has started trying to become an undemocratic socialist superstate which spits on the will of the people.

When the British joined the EUSSR in 1973 - after years of countries such as France not wanting us to join and blocking our entrance - it was merely a Common Market and was solely to do with trade. It did not become the undemocratic monster it is now with an unelected president that hardly any of the 507 million EU citizens had ever heard and it didn't have unelected foreigners in a foreign capital controlling our lives and creating most of our laws.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,393
1,666
113
Canada was tricked into EU membership?

There are many dimwits in Canada who see the EU as a good thing and wish Canada to join, despite its obvious pretensions to be an anti-democratic superstate. If Canada joined it will become an even bigger non-entity on the global stage than it is now and the vast majority of your laws will be made by unelected foreigners in Brussels (or, for several months of the year, in Strasbourg, when all the EU parliament has to upsticks to that city at great expense to the taxpayer, just to suit French egos).

At least when Britain joined we only did so when it was merely a Common Market to do with trade. We wouldn't have joined if it had been as it is now.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,393
1,666
113
Google ruling 'astonishing', says Wikipedia founder Wales

By Dave Lee
Technology reporter
BBC News
14 May 2014





Jimmy Wales said he expected Google to fight the decision

A ruling forcing Google to remove search results has been described as "astonishing" by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.

The European Courts of Justice ruled on Tuesday that an individual could demand that "irrelevant or outdated" information be deleted from results.

Mr Wales said it was "one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I've ever seen".

Google has said it is looking into the implications of the decision.

Mr Wales, speaking to BBC Radio 5 live, said: "I suspect this isn't going to stand for very long.

"If you really dig into it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. They're asking Google... you can complain about something and just say it's irrelevant, and Google has to make some kind of a determination about that.

"That's a very hard and difficult thing for Google to do - particularly if it's at risk of being held legally liable if it gets it wrong in some way.

"Normally we would think whoever is publishing the information, they have the primary responsibility - Google just helps us to find the things that are online."

He added: "I would expect that Google is going to resist these claims quite vigorously.

"I think they would be foolish not to because if they have to start coping with everybody who whines about a picture they posted last week, it's going to be very difficult for Google."

'Eerie parallel'

On Tuesday, a top EU court ruled that Google must remove search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten".

The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his privacy.

Google said the ruling was "disappointing".


The case involved Spanish man Mario Costeja Gonzalez (who looks remarkably like Rafa Benitez)



The ruling has provoked a flurry of reaction speculating on the wider implications of the EU's decision.

In the Guardian (believe it or not), journalist James Ball described the ruling as "either an eerie parallel with China's domestic censorship of search results, or a huge incentive for tech investment to get the hell out of Europe".

He added: "Neither, presumably, is a remotely desirable result."

Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary David Davis backed the court's decision, saying: "The presumption by internet companies and others that they can use people's personal information in any way they see fit is wrong, and can only happen because the legal framework in most states is still in the last century when it comes to property rights in personal information."

Beyond Europe

In the US, Slate's Lily Hay Newman argued that if taking down search results became the norm, another problem may arise.

"A case could be made that this may give people a false sense of security," she wrote. "Sure, if you remove something from Google or Bing, most people won't be able to find it anymore. But it still exists, and interested parties may be able to find it."

Also looking at implications beyond Europe, Canada's Financial Post quotes lawyer Geoff White as saying "I think some privacy advocates might leverage this decision to recommend that Canada follow a similar path, particularly with minors."


European Commission vice-president Viviane Reding applauded the EU court's decision

Coverage in the Washington Post reflected the view that the ruling would put Europe firmly at odds with the more hands-off approach taken by the US government on data privacy.

A different perspective, and one certainly not expressed by Google, was offered by law firm CompactLaw: "We would argue that the 'right to be forgotten' is a fundamental right for living a life online.

"We would also argue that enshrining this right will actually encourage more sharing and personal content - so will actually benefit media companies like Google."

European Commission vice-president Viviane Reding, who has led the EU's data privacy efforts, took to her Facebook page immediately after the ruling.

"The ruling confirms the need to bring today's data protection rules from the 'digital stone age' into today's modern computing world where data is no longer stored on 'a server', or once launched online disappears in cyberspace," she wrote.

BBC News - Google ruling 'astonishing', says Wikipedia founder Wales