4 ms·

As far as I'm aware that's simply not true. See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.e

As far as I'm aware that's simply not true. See http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets... Furthermore the right to be forgotten only mandates hiding results when someone searches specifically for a name, for example. The results are still allowed to come up for unrelated search terms.

skissane 11y ago
Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive) never specifically mentions "search engines", it talks about "controllers" of personal data. The ECJ ruled (Case C‑131/12) that search engines such as Google count as controllers of personal data, and thus are subject to the "right to be forgotten" under the Directive. But clearly the Directive is applicable to many other things than search engines, so the "right to be forgotten" cannot be restricted to search engines either. (Newspapers should be exempt because article 9 of the directive has an exemption for "the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression", but search engines don't fall into that category, and other web sites may or may not either.) The court judgement - http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=152065&occ=first&dir&cid=437838 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doc... - paragraph 26 says "As regards in particular the internet, the Court has already had occasion to state that the operation of loading personal data on an internet page must be considered to be such ‘processing’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46" - so by the Court's reasoning the Directive potentially applies to any web page, not just search engines.
- Trombone12 11y ago
  Indeed, the Data protection directive is not about search engines: it is about privacy online in general and any web page published or plausibly controlled from within the European union is subject to it (and of course also to any IPFS page, although who controls it is harder to say). It has always applied to a lot more than search engines. The "right to be forgotten" is a phrase used in the argument for de-listing, and later became the name for the ruling itself. This was however not a right that the court granted, but rather the court points out that the data protection directive stipulates that personal data shall be: """ (c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed; (d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified; """ and judges (in paragraph 93) that in particular, data that was once in compliance might not be at a later time. It also states that the failure of the particular data in this case to be those things means the person described by them can invoke the right to object to the processing, in this case having personal data listed on a page as a response to a "search made on the basis of his name" (in paragraph 94). It is not completely clear, but I think the query being judged upon includes only the name of the person, and adding a keyword relating to the particular year, or bankruptcy actions, would be enough to make the data "adequate, relevant and not excessive".
Trombone12 11y ago
More relevant, is that it seems safe to include the link even in name searches that also includes additional keywords, since google lost on account of them judging a very old news about him still relevant for listing in a general name query, and the court saying: not so.

skissane 11y ago

Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive) never specifically mentions "search engines", it talks about "controllers" of personal data. The ECJ ruled (Case C‑131/12) that search engines such as Google count as controllers of personal data, and thus are subject to the "right to be forgotten" under the Directive. But clearly the Directive is applicable to many other things than search engines, so the "right to be forgotten" cannot be restricted to search engines either. (Newspapers should be exempt because article 9 of the directive has an exemption for "the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression", but search engines don't fall into that category, and other web sites may or may not either.) The court judgement - http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=152065&occ=first&dir&cid=437838 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doc... - paragraph 26 says "As regards in particular the internet, the Court has already had occasion to state that the operation of loading personal data on an internet page must be considered to be such ‘processing’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 95/46" - so by the Court's reasoning the Directive potentially applies to any web page, not just search engines.

Trombone12 11y ago
Indeed, the Data protection directive is not about search engines: it is about privacy online in general and any web page published or plausibly controlled from within the European union is subject to it (and of course also to any IPFS page, although who controls it is harder to say). It has always applied to a lot more than search engines. The "right to be forgotten" is a phrase used in the argument for de-listing, and later became the name for the ruling itself. This was however not a right that the court granted, but rather the court points out that the data protection directive stipulates that personal data shall be: """ (c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed; (d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or rectified; """ and judges (in paragraph 93) that in particular, data that was once in compliance might not be at a later time. It also states that the failure of the particular data in this case to be those things means the person described by them can invoke the right to object to the processing, in this case having personal data listed on a page as a response to a "search made on the basis of his name" (in paragraph 94). It is not completely clear, but I think the query being judged upon includes only the name of the person, and adding a keyword relating to the particular year, or bankruptcy actions, would be enough to make the data "adequate, relevant and not excessive".

Trombone12 11y ago

More relevant, is that it seems safe to include the link even in name searches that also includes additional keywords, since google lost on account of them judging a very old news about him still relevant for listing in a general name query, and the court saying: not so.