10 ms·
European Court limits right to be forgotten to E.U.
- BeniBoy 7y agoThe crux of the ruling > [...] that operator is not required to carry out that de-referencing on all versions of its search engine, but on the versions of that search engine corresponding to all the Member States, using, where necessary, measures which, while meeting the legal requirements, effectively prevent or, at the very least, seriously discourage an internet user conducting a search from one of the Member States on the basis of a data subject’s name from gaining access, via the list of results displayed following that search, to the links which are the subject of that request.
- hnarn 7y agoI'm curious what "seriously discourage" would mean in this context, just bury the search result and that's fine?
- hugoroy 7y agoThis "crux" misses point 72 of the ruling which states that EU law does not prohibit national law from (a) finding a different balance between privacy and freedom of expression and, thus, from (b) requiring the de-listing of the relevant name-search result on all versions of the search engine (i.e. globally). This ruling is not the end of the case -- this is the EU law's top court ruling -- the case now goes back to the French court, to decide.
- nicholsonpk 7y ago>requiring the de-listing of the relevant name-search result on all versions of the search engine (i.e. globally). I sure hope this gets turned down. I'm not ready for international law where courts ruling over 65 million people (French population) can enforce their laws worldwide. If a single nation has that power, what's stopping China from making Tienanmen Square unsearchable worldwide?
- hugoroy 7y agoI don't really think France's judges power really has an influence on what's stopping, or not stopping, China. China is not waiting for this ruling to try to do just that. It's up to operators like Google to decide whether they want to do business in China or whether they prioritise human rights.
- eloff 7y agoChina could probably pull that off if they wanted to. The same way they made international companies rename Taiwan, including Air Canada, they could force search engines to erase Tiananmen Massacre references if they want to continue doing business in China. However, last I heard Google is blocked in China, so the company is one of very few to resist Chinese pressure. Is that still true?
- nicholsonpk 7y agoIf this were a ruling that said the results cannot be shown in France or in the EU then I would be okay with that. I think that individual countries should be able to apply laws in their jurisdiction. My problem is that they want to enforce this law worldwide. Hypothetically, if EU law says their ruling applies worldwide and Google stops doing business in the EU, does that mean they would be exempted? Can they then show all results or does the EU still try to charge them with breaking their law? Obviously that's a lot of ifs. I'm just trying to wrap my head around how this ruling would even work if they decide that it does apply to everyone.
- 7y ago
- hartator 7y agoThat’s a good news. It was the worst part of GDPR.
- hugoroy 7y agoThis is based on the law applicable before the GDPR. That French law dates from 2004 and implements EU law from 1995.
- lostjohnny 7y agoit has nothing to do with GDPR thanks for trying
- blankety119 7y agoAre you sure about that? The implications of what's been said here will on some level impact how EU law will apply to countries outside of the EU. Considering the right to be forgotten is closely married to the right to erasure, GDPR is in the crosshairs. Remember, GDPR was supposed to apply globally. It's clear from today's ruling, there's some doubt in the courts whether or not that is even responsible, let alone possible.
- orwin 7y ago> Considering the right to be forgotten is closely married to the right to erasure How? The right to be forgotten is just basically asking google/yahoo/bing/qwant not to put articles that can hurt one's reputation if asked. Imagine the only thing you're known for is a pedophilia case were you were first condamned, then release because it appears the children (and some of the really guilty) have lied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial You might want your name removed from google. Maybe. The right to erasure is just your furnishing your own personnal data to a service provider and then asking them to remove all the data they have on you they can delete. In the last case, you have a direct, business relation to the service provider. In the first one you don't.
- 7y ago
- jaclaz 7y agoSo basically, if you cannot find what you are looking for, use a few proxies to try the same on non-EU countries versions of the same search engine?
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoThe goal of the law is not to make information impossible to find. That's why this targets search engines primarily. The goal is that it becomes harder to resurface irrelevant information from someone's past.
- liveoneggs 7y agowho decides what is irrelevant?
- La1n 7y agoGoogle in this case https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/the-right-be-forgotten-google-search https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/18/the-right...
- jaclaz 7y agoThe issue of course is not about the Law, and not even with the actual right to be forgotten (right or wrong is another question), it is IMHO more about the fact that this (or that) search engine will have different results depending on from where you make the same search. Now these differences may well be only for the searches related to someone who invoked his/her right to be forgotten, but the moment the results of a same search from different places can be different, it opens all possible avenues to remove (or add) other kind of information selectively.
- the_mitsuhiko 7y agoEven without that law search engines already return different results in different countries.
- 7y ago
- hugoroy 7y agoA few comments/explanations on that ruling: 1. It is not the end of the case -- this ruling is from the European Union law's top court (the CJEU) to give the ultimate interpretation of European Union law on the topic. 2. The case now goes back to France, where the French judge will decide, taking into account both EU law and French law, whether the Data Protection Authority's (CNIL) ruling against Google was correct or not. The most crucial point that most media reports miss is that the CJEU ruling states clearly that French courts are not prohibited from ordering a global de-listing of all versions of Google, if the protection of privacy requires so (Point 72 of the ruling). 3. The CJEU ruling restates many points from its 2014 ruling against Google Inc (US) and Google Spain - i.e. this is about an individual's right to remove certain results from the list of results based on the individual's name. It is not a right to remove content per se, nor is it a right to remove results entirely (i.e. the de-listed results should be searchable through any other search query) 4. As in 2014, the Court rules that as a general rule/principle, the individual's right to opt-out prevails over the public's freedom to access search results -- but this is not absolute, and the other way around may be true depending on the circumstances (e.g. if the result is particularly relevant for the public's interest). [This "general rule" is the part of the ruling which I find most open to criticism, as in my opinion this is not what the law provides] 5. This ruling is based on law before the GDPR. While the GDPR will continue to apply this mutatis mutandis as we say, this ruling has nothing to do directly with GDPR.
- seanwilson 7y agoSo now you could defeat the purpose of the "right to be forgotten" by making a site that remembers and lists all items that have been purged from EU only search results? righttoberemembered.eu hasn't be registered yet.
- aequitas 7y agoExcept that for a .eu domain you need to be EU citizen or a organisation based in the EU, making you liable under EU law. But other than that, yes.
- emiliobumachar 7y agoIt wouldn't entirely defeat the purpose, as your site itself would probably be delisted in the EU.
- curt15 7y agoPeople in the US have never had a right to control over what people in other countries write or think about them. Vice versa.
- brokenkebab 7y agoThe ruling is fair, it would open an international can of worms if EU bodies would start to dictate other countries users what to see on the net. However, it means the real effect of the RtBF law is that it impedes less technically proficient internet users to search other person's data, but absolutely doesn't achieve stated goals (as nothing is forgotten, and entities which do personal data checks will for sure be able to use non-EU IPs to get unrestricted results). What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all. Which proves the whole thing was a combination of PR stunt, and incompetence on behalf of wide array of EU politicians, and NGO activists.
- Vinnl 7y ago> What it essentially does is limitation of low-skilled users search results. And that's all. That sounds like it's still something though. If someone gets falsely accused of e.g. being a pedophile, and their prospective employer does not run into that information when researching them during the interview process, that seems like it achieves one of the goals people had in mind with this legislation.
- bilbo0s 7y agoBut the employer would, because the firm they use to do background checks will use an IP in the States to do the search.
- AstralStorm 7y agoWell if the employer is in the EU, they won't. So it's a win for EU, they get a potentially skilled employee. USA privacy laws are bad enough you can get sicced by a private investigator most of the time with no questions asked, no repercussions.
- brokenkebab 7y ago>Well if the employer is in the EU, they won't. They would, of course. Unless, someone's planning to build a whole Chinese-style censorship state, it's not possible to disallow to obtain information through VPN.
- ryanobjc 7y agoApparently the “right to be forgotten” is from laws in Spain which exist to allow people to erase their fascist past. Avoiding awkward conversations about what oke did during the war.
- hugoroy 7y agoThis comes from a [EU Court 2014 Ruling][1] based on Spain's implementation of European Union Directive 95/46 from 1995 which has nothing to do with what you're talking about. [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=969114 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc... And the 2014 ruling, as this ruling, are clear that there is no absolute right to "erase" the result on a name. It is not a wildcard to erase every bit of relevant data about anyone, and Google regularly denies requests to de-list result on this basis. As the 2014 ruling provides: "Whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights protected by those articles also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, that balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life. (§81 of 2014, Case C-131/12)" And for example the court provides that "for particular reasons" the right does not apply. Such reasons include "the role played by the data subject in public life" that would be "justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question. (§97)" As always, the actual ruling is much more nuanced and balanced than many media reports or corporations would have you believe.
- duxup 7y agoDid this limit the law to search engine's again? We've seen it used against newspapers. I worry about that.
- wtdata 7y agoAll this does is to move business out of EU. We are now worst that when we started: Still no right to privacy and now, loosing our companies.
- rolltiide 7y agoI really like what they are trying to do in the European Union Just surprised this court hasn’t had its Marbury v Madison moment when it rules for itself to take over the government
- JasonFruit 7y agoI wonder how it came to be that only people in certain countries have a particular right, and how a court can determine that. I'd like to know their definition of a right. I'm pretty sure it differs from mine.
- gotoeleven 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights_and_legal_right...
- rayvd 7y agoSome countries define rights on paper and then fight wars to preserve them. Where there are differences between political bodies, the options are: * Negotiate to resolve them via treaties, etc. * Coerce via other means - usually loops back to the first bullet once sufficient force has been applied
- m-p-3 7y agoOne more reason to push the jurisdiction we each live in to move towards similar rights.
- api 7y agoToo bad. I was hoping the EU would use its economic might to apply pressure against surveillance capitalism. Sometimes when our host nations fail us our best option is to hope for global pressure.
- rayvd 7y agoIt doesn't seem like their "economic might" would last too long if they tried this tactic. It also doesn't help that the country they'd be targeting provides for their military defense.
- chroma 7y agoMy issue with "right to be forgotten" is with the principle, not the implementation. It violates not only freedom of speech, but freedom of private communication. Let's look at what it's really involved with: I send an encrypted request asking a company for some information. That company wants to reply (also encrypted) with that information. This law forbids them from doing so. The company might be a megacorp like Google, but (depending on what I'm searching for) it might be a smaller service run by an enthusiast. This law should really be called, "The right to stop other people saying true things about me to people who request that information."