EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ratius**

Thought this was interesting

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27388289

A top EU court has ruled Google must amend some search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten".

The European Union Court of Justice said links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.

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".
Continue reading the main story
image of Rory Cellan-Jones Analysis Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

Backers of the "right to be forgotten" are celebrating this ruling. EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has called it "a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans".

But the judgement could have huge consequences for anyone who publishes material online about individuals, and they will urgently be asking their lawyers exactly what it means.

Can anyone who does not like an old story about them simply demand that it is wiped away? That does appear to be the case - the ruling says the rights of the individual are paramount when it comes to their control over their personal data, although there is a public interest defence when it comes to people in public life.

Google, having won at earlier stages of this legal battle, is both surprised and furious at this outcome. But it isn't clear that the search firm can do anything about it.

Read more from Rory

"We now need to take time to analyse the implications," a spokesperson added.
'Inadequate'

The search engine says it does not control data, it only offers links to information freely available on the internet.

It has previously said forcing it to remove data amounts to censorship.

The EU Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, welcomed the court's decision in a post on Facebook, saying it was a "clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans".

"The ruling confirms the need to bring today's data protection rules from the "digital stone age" into today's modern computing world," she said.

The European Commission proposed a law giving users the "right to be forgotten" in 2012.

It would require search engines to edit some searches to make them compliant with the European directive on the protection of personal data.

In its judgement on Tuesday, the court in Luxembourg said people had the right to request information be removed if it appeared to be "inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant".
line break
A right to be forgotten?
European Court of Justice, Luxembourg

In 2012, the European Commission published plans for a "right to be forgotten" law, allowing people to request that data about themselves to be deleted
Online service providers would have to comply unless they had "legitimate" reason to do otherwise
The plans are part of a wide-ranging overhaul of the commission's 1995 Data Protection Directive
UK's Ministry of Justice is seeking British opt-out from any law - it claims that the law "raises unrealistic and unfair expectations"
Some tech firms have expressed concern about the reach of the bill

line break

BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones says the ruling has huge consequences for anyone who publishes material online about individuals.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote

From Google's perspective, a nightmare potentially awaits, given the possibility that floods of requests are about to come its way”

'The right to be forgotten'

It appears to say that anyone who does not like an old story about them can ask for it to be wiped away, he adds.

The judgement stresses that the rights of the individual are paramount when it comes to their control over their personal data, although there is a public interest defence when it comes to people in public life.

'No legal oversight'

The ruling came after Mario Costeja Gonzalez complained that a search of his name in Google brought up newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed.

He said the matter had been resolved and should no longer be linked to him.

Campaign group Index on Censorship condemned the decision, saying it "violates the fundamental principles of freedom of expression".

"It allows individuals to complain to search engines about information they do not like with no legal oversight," it said.

"This is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books."

Mr Gonzalez's case is one of scores of similar cases in Spain whose complainants want Google to delete their personal information from their search results.

The court said people should address any request for data to be removed to the operator of the search engine, which must then examine its merits.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

The ruling came after Mario Costeja Gonzalez complained that a search of his name in Google brought up newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed.

He said the matter had been resolved and should no longer be linked to him.

THAT is the cause of all this?!

**whembly**

Good luck in enforcing some "right to be forgotten" ruling...

**MrDwhitey**

whembly wrote:
Good luck in enforcing some "right to be forgotten" ruling...

When does Benghazi get it?

**whembly**

MrDwhitey wrote:
whembly wrote:
Good luck in enforcing some "right to be forgotten" ruling...

When does Benghazi get it?

When the perps either does the perp-walk or meets their creator.

**dementedwombat**

This seems rather like a bad idea. It's not actually getting rid of any information, it's just arbitrarily making this information harder to access by removing it from search engines. The absolute best case scenario for this is that there's a centralized "exempt from search engine" list but I'm guessing each search engine will have to process their requests individually, so some information will be available from specific engines but not from others.

Just overall a mess that doesn't really accomplish much in the grand scale of things. I would hope that anybody who actually needs access to such information will have ways of finding it without resorting to public search engines.

**Co'tor Shas**

Personally, I don't like it. Get the thing removed, but a search engine should not be limited in what it can give you.

**Howard A Treesong**

There doesn't seem much oversight from courts or any authority, people are being given the power to write to google and ask them to gag their search engine returning unfavourable results.

**Frazzled**

dementedwombat wrote:
This seems rather like a bad idea. It's not actually getting rid of any information, it's just arbitrarily making this information harder to access by removing it from search engines. The absolute best case scenario for this is that there's a centralized "exempt from search engine" list but I'm guessing each search engine will have to process their requests individually, so some information will be available from specific engines but not from others.

Just overall a mess that doesn't really accomplish much in the grand scale of things. I would hope that anybody who actually needs access to such information will have ways of finding it without resorting to public search engines.

Its a great idea.
of course someone who's motivated will be able to get it. But so what? Someone who's motivated can blast the President, or follow you around via helicopter in a clown suit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, I don't like it. Get the thing removed, but a search engine should not be limited in what it can give you.

Why?

Alternatively, just make it an actionable claim in civil court equal to $10 per hit. I guarantee Google will make sure it disappears.

Alternatively the government could quit releasing this information.

**whembly**

Or... even more devious, create posting activities to drive down the unwanted information off of Google's first page.

Most people don't scan more then a few google returns, much less click the "next page" of the google search.

(hence, why Google charges first page/search premium for advertisements.)

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Personally, I don't like it. Get the thing removed, but a search engine should not be limited in what it can give you.

Why?

Alternatively, just make it an actionable claim in civil court equal to $10 per hit. I guarantee Google will make sure it disappears.

Alternatively the government could quit releasing this information.

We should not have restricted access to things on the public record.

**Frazzled**

Horse crap. Information about private citizens should absolutely be kept private.

**Co'tor Shas**

Not if it's on the public record, such as arrests, things that need to be known. An employer should be allowed to know if you have been arrested for embezzling from your previous place of work or suchlike.

**Kilkrazy**

If the "offending" article was published in a newspaper it is a matter of public record protected by free speech and cannot be expunged unless found to be false or libellous or something. I.e. it is not a private matter.

Shackling an internet search engine that merely finds such info doesn't seem like a clever thing in the modern world.

**LuciusAR**

Here in the UK repossessions are a matter of public record. I can find the complete history of property via the Land Registry so I don’t think something like this could be a considered a matter of privacy.

I’m just worried that companies or political/public figures could use this legislation to get embarrassing facts about their past erased in an Orwellian fashion. I think there will be a few regrettable unintended consequences to this ruling.

**Kilkrazy**

Here is El Reg's editorial opinion on the matter.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/14/google_eu_ruling/

The TLDR is "storm in a teacup got up by media for sensationalism."

**Baragash**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is El Reg's editorial opinion on the matter.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/14/google_eu_ruling/

The TLDR is "storm in a teacup got up by media for sensationalism."

And yet it completely fails to address the issue of "why is this the search engine's problem and why is the complainant not addressing it with whoever posted the information".

**Kilkrazy**

That is because the function of the editorial is not to provide a solution for the problem, it is to provide comment on the provided solution.