3 ms·

> The implementation of "right to be forgotten" is problematic. It forces service providers to take down content on the request of a complainant, without going

> The implementation of "right to be forgotten" is problematic. It forces service providers to take down content on the request of a complainant, without going through judicial approval. It's up to the service provider to render a decision, and if they wrongly refuse the request, they could be subject to a fine. That is not how it works. I'm guessing that some information is missing in this article. How it works is that you make a request to the service provider, if they refuse your request you can appeal to your Data Protection Agency. Only if the service provider fails to comply with DPA decision can it face legal action.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago
"Only if the service provider fails to comply with DPA decision can it face legal action." That's not correct. Often DPAs are issuing corrective instruction prior to a fine, but not always, and there's nothing in the law that requires it.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  >That's not correct. Often DPAs are issuing corrective instruction prior to a fine, but not always, and there's nothing in the law that requires it. It's not quite as obvious as a clause like "Supervisory Authorities must not fine unless..." but the GDPR clearly anticipates that fines should not always be imposed. Give Article 83 ("General conditions for imposing administrative fines") of the GDPR a read. To wit: Paragraph 1 states "the imposition of administrative fines [...] shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive" The introduction of proportionality means SAs can't just jump to issuing fines if a warning will suffice (and if they do then it can be overturned by a court or by the EDPB issuing a binding instruction). Paragraph 2 states "When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to the following" and then lists 11 factors that the SA must take in to account. Again, if these aren't taken in to account then the SA risks losing a judicial review of the decision to fine.
  - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
    Assuming that bureaucrats will be totally reasonable seems to be a uniquely European thing. They may be more reasonable than ours in the US, but the incentives of the system don't support the latitude they're given.
ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
The article reads as if this wasn't the case. Do you have a source that mentions this? Everything I can find reads exactly the same as DMCA, where there's no 'central authority' to listen to, but you're just expected to treat each request as if it was part of a lawsuit. This is especially insane, since this was undoubtably the action of an agent at Google, and we have no idea how many claims Google does properly handle. If each wrong handling is a 600k fine, you will quickly see every single request approved.
- xg15 6y ago
  There is no central authority for the whole of the EU, however there are authorities for each member state.

Matticus_Rex 6y ago

"Only if the service provider fails to comply with DPA decision can it face legal action." That's not correct. Often DPAs are issuing corrective instruction prior to a fine, but not always, and there's nothing in the law that requires it.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
>That's not correct. Often DPAs are issuing corrective instruction prior to a fine, but not always, and there's nothing in the law that requires it. It's not quite as obvious as a clause like "Supervisory Authorities must not fine unless..." but the GDPR clearly anticipates that fines should not always be imposed. Give Article 83 ("General conditions for imposing administrative fines") of the GDPR a read. To wit: Paragraph 1 states "the imposition of administrative fines [...] shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive" The introduction of proportionality means SAs can't just jump to issuing fines if a warning will suffice (and if they do then it can be overturned by a court or by the EDPB issuing a binding instruction). Paragraph 2 states "When deciding whether to impose an administrative fine and deciding on the amount of the administrative fine in each individual case due regard shall be given to the following" and then lists 11 factors that the SA must take in to account. Again, if these aren't taken in to account then the SA risks losing a judicial review of the decision to fine.
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  Assuming that bureaucrats will be totally reasonable seems to be a uniquely European thing. They may be more reasonable than ours in the US, but the incentives of the system don't support the latitude they're given.

ApolloFortyNine 6y ago

The article reads as if this wasn't the case. Do you have a source that mentions this? Everything I can find reads exactly the same as DMCA, where there's no 'central authority' to listen to, but you're just expected to treat each request as if it was part of a lawsuit. This is especially insane, since this was undoubtably the action of an agent at Google, and we have no idea how many claims Google does properly handle. If each wrong handling is a 600k fine, you will quickly see every single request approved.

xg15 6y ago
There is no central authority for the whole of the EU, however there are authorities for each member state.