Slashdot Mirror
No "Right To Be Forgotten," Says EU Advocate General
DW100 writes "A ruling this morning from the European Court of Justice has said that Google does not have to delete personal data from its search index, in a case that could have huge ramifications for web privacy and the so-called 'right to be forgotten.'"
From the article: EU Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen "said Google and other search engines are not subject to privacy requirements under current European data protection law. 'Search engine service providers are not responsible, on the basis of the Data Protection Directive, for personal data appearing on web pages they process,' he said in his official ruling, published by the court. He went on to explain that based on current laws citizens do not have a right to be removed from search indexes within the framework of the Data Protection Directive. 'The Directive does not establish a general "right to be forgotten." Such a right cannot therefore be invoked against search engine service providers on the basis of the Directive,' he said."
. . . .immediately think, ". . . all the better to data-mine you by. . . ."
Now if only they'd stop messing too much with Google (apart from tax issues) and rescind the need for stupid "We're using cookies" splash screens then we'd all be happy Europhiles.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
This is not the right to be forgotten, it is something completely different. The right to be forgotten means that you can ask Google to delete data you gave to it yourself, e.g. your Gmail account a G+ profile. It does not have anything to do with removing search results.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The opinion of the Advocate General is a preliminary document, a recommendationn, not a ruling of the Court. A recommendation to the European Court that is often followed by the Court. Legal grounds is the current EU directive, a directive that is implemented in national laws and provides a level of minimum harmonisation across EU member states. There may be other legal grounds. Currently the entire EU data protection legislative framework is under reform.
We all have the right to remember things and discuss them. A "Right to be Forgotten" is an attack on the peoples freedom of thought. It is censorship used by the rich and powerful to hide their crimes. It is an attempt to avoid public shaming.
The ruling is entirely reasonable (at least to the extent that I understand the European law). The answer is to amend the law so that it does include the right to be forgotten, except for non-trivial things (e.g. a paper that you've published, or news articles, especially about public figures). We need such a law in the US too, but I don't see how the Constitution requires it (which doesn't mean you can't have a law, especially in light of the 9th Amendment).
A search engine is also the last party that should be responsible for this. It's utterly unreasonable to ask them to judge whether such a requirement is applicable to every page they index. The "publisher" of the page is the one that should be responsible.
How else will people find the sites that have not forgotten ?
I would bet money that eventually Google's servers will be attacked by someone who wants to wipe themselves off of the servers.
Maybe the Russian mafia or the Chinese will offer a service to do just that for a price.
There are already such extortion services. They publish a mugshot of your arrest 20 years ago (you know, the class Z misdemeanor that you were acquitted of anyway) and offer to remove it for a price.
What if you send Google a Cease-and-Desist letter? You won't be the only one who does this, and you would have more right to do so than others.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
No way to wait for them. Just search for "reputation management"
bickerdyke
it isn't your data. it is just about you. you can have google delist all of YOUR data, which on the internet is defined as data you host.
I suspect that in this I will be contrary to most of the /. audience, but I don't believe that there IS an inherent "right to be forgotten".
Not at ALL.
In fact, I'd go so far as to point to the anonymizing of people as one of the more pernicious aspects of modern society (both as subject and as direct-object).
What we do, what we say, and the ripples of these actions are fundamentally WHO WE ARE. For better or worse, they are inescapably tied to us.
As much as we'd like to deny some things, or be allowed to (re)define ourselves, our actions speak more clearly to our essential character and personality than anything we can say, or rationalize, or even remember (since our memories are going to be biased in any case). Everyone makes mistakes, fools try to run from them. The facts of our mistakes are likewise part of us.
The idea that people have a "right" to erase this, to say "I am as I am today, not as I was yesterday" isn't subtle and isn't profound: it's denial.
Oh I think I "get it" - the assertion behind the 'right to be forgotten' is one of anonymity. In an era where the power of the individual seems to have vanished in the face of the might of collective entities like governments and corporations, the perception is that one can dodge aside by being anonymous. That too is silly in an era where passive observation is growing more comprehensive and data retention is nearly eternal.
-Styopa
Just as the concentration of computer processing power cycles between the client and the server (could/network) so to does the length of time that consequences of your actions stay with you.
This is despite most developed countries having a concept along the lines of the UK's "rehabilitation of offenders" - the right to put your wrongs behind you and start again. We have now entered a cycle where that is not possible, because your wrongs are documented forever on the Internet.
And that will continue, until such time as we can travel faster than information.
It is such a huge undertaking to remove anything from the internet that it doesn't make sense to have a right to be forgotten. How can you expect a search engine to filter its results from anything anyone ever hoped to remove from the web while still accurately indexing it? On top of that, even if you managed to get Google, or Bing, or whatever to stop indexing any page with personal information, what keeps them from being remembered? You cannot tell google to search imgur for pictures of cats, or airplanes, or naked girls, but there are other sites that index them. You cannot ask google to find you a free episode of The Sopranos and it won't, but there are other sites that index them; when these are taken down no-one has any difficult finding a replacement. It is simply impossible, technically impossible to be forgotten if there is someone out there that wants to keep the information.
"In the database, part of the database...in the database, part of the database!"
I am John Hurt.
True, which is why this case isn't about "Right to be forgotten" which is related to the closure of your personal online accounts and not any data published and subsequently indexed by a third party.
The obligation that Google, news sites etc. does have however under various EU data protection laws is that any information that they hold about you must be accurate and corrected if found not to be. Also they can not to publish information that could be otherwise considered private and not in public knowledge. Generally (with some exceptions) they also have to provide you with any personal information they hold about you as an individual, and can charge a reasonable fee for providing such information.
Unfortunately for the individual involved the information published and indexed is correct and is publicly available due to court proceedings and being published in a newspaper etc. so they have no obligation to remove it or change it in any way.
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Use Google to find web sites hosting data about you. Contact them to delete it. Now it won't show up in Google or ANY OTHER search engine.
lol lazy obvious troll is obvious.
if any country, including 'merika fucks up? they should be called out for it. that also includes the EU as well. it's not exclusive.
try harder.
There is no target.
The published data was both factually correct and public knowledge due to court filings so there can be no expectation of privacy.
All the individual managed to do with this case is to make it even more widely known and at any interview will now also be the guy who tried to get unpleasant information himself removed from Google and failed.
[The Universe] has gone offline.
it isn't your data. it is just about you.
That attitude is why we had to invent data protection laws in the first place.
And defamation laws.
And model releases for photographers.
And press complaints regulations.
And a whole bunch of other stuff, because it turns out that being able to collect arbitrary data about an individual and use it for arbitrary purposes can be very damaging to that individual in particular and ultimately to civil society as a general trend, and it turns out that there are enough people in the world who would abuse that kind of data to the harm of others that we need to punish those who do as a deterrent.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The specific example cited was that of a guy who long ago was repossessed as a result of defaulting on his mortgage. Given that a public notice will have been issued on this, there is data about him 'in the public domain'. In the old days, when search engines didn't exist, that sort of data would have remained invisible to almost all people. These days it's suddenly become visible because of new technology. The same applies to ancient criminal convictions or other moments of fame generally forgotten. In this context, the debate is far more interesting: is my 15 minutes of fame to be available for the rest of time, or should access to it be limited. If it is as a result of an article in a newspaper, then should the newspaper be required to remove certain articles? Or should the search engines be stoppable? Or should we accept that something new has emerged? The need to forget past mistakes is recognised in the English criminal law by banning the identities of people under 18 from being published if they come before the criminal courts. This is an attempt to allow juvenile offenders to escape a permanent black mark against their name.
Vote them out put the bastards out of business
Jack of all trades,master of none
I think that paragraph D.41 is important to remember:
And footnote 27 about those "exclusion codes" says:
Now I know that almost all Slashdotters already know about this, but if this passes then it means that (in the EU) it is written in law that a search engine spider isn't allowed to use stuff that you kept out with your robots.txt file.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Can investigative journalists be sued for surreptitiously recording you doing something and then making a report about it without your pemission?
Can Church of Scientology sue you for discussing their teachings without their permission?
Can you be banned from taking of photo of, say, Times Square because you don't have the premission of all the people who happened to be walking by in the background?
Can investigative journalists be sued for surreptitiously recording you doing something and then making a report about it without your pemission?
That depends on the circumstances. This isn't a black and white question, and there may be good arguments either way that need to be reconciled to reach a balanced view.
Can Church of Scientology sue you for discussing their teachings without their permission?
Anyone can sue anyone in most legal systems, but in general organisations aren't people and I don't personally believe they merit the same level of privacy protection as people.
Can you be banned from taking of photo of, say, Times Square because you don't have the premission of all the people who happened to be walking by in the background?
Again, I don't think this is a black and white question. In the era of databases and search engines and biometric recognition and asymmetric observer-subject relationships where you can be watched remotely but can't watch back, actions that used to be considered reasonable and harmless might not be any more. On the other side, with the kind of technologies we now have available, actions that help to restore the balance between privacy and free expression might be more reasonably expected where previously they were prohibitively expensive. For example, consider the way Google now blank out things like people's faces and plates on cars in Street View in response to privacy concerns.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.