21 ms·

Europe's top court: people have right to be forgotten on Internet

247 points by kevcampb 12y ago

justinpaulson 12y ago
I am not sure how most countries in the EU handle the press, but without digging into this too much, it seems like this ruling greatly limits the freedom of press. What if a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader or someone closely related with them? Does that person have the "right" to kill the right that the free press has to go public with the information? I really don't think something like this would stand up in the US at all, but I'm unfamiliar with press laws in most of Europe.
- SEMW 12y ago
  "What do we do when fundamental right X of person A conflicts with fundamental right Y of person B" is a question courts have been asking and answering for a very long time. There's a hell of a lot of ECtHR and CJEU case law on how to balance competing rights. I don't imagine it's any different in the US. The US may draw the line a little further towards the direction of freedom of the press and away from privacy etc. than Europe does, but it's not like it's an unqualified right on either side of the pond.
  - magicalist 12y ago
    "I'm sure there's case law that establishes some kind of balance" isn't really any kind of answer to the GP's questions...
    - SEMW 12y ago
      ..What would you consider an answer? GP asked what would happen. Answer: a balancing exercise. If you want some examples (from the UK, as that's where I live), try Campbell v MGN [2003], or In Re S (A Child) [2005]. From the latter: "First, neither article [8 (privacy) nor 10 (freedom of speech)] has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each." If you want my prediction on what'd happen if "a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader... [can they stop the press going public using EU data protection legislation]", I'd say: no. Like, that's not even close to the borderline. Data protection legislation isn't even relevant to press reporting current events, anyway - more relevant for a (UK) political leader would be better off trying to stop a story is defamation law, which is subject to a whole other set of controls and defences.
beejiu 12y ago
And they wonder why so many Brits want to leave the EU.
- bowlofpetunias 12y ago
  Actually, privacy protection is one of few issues in which the EU is on the side of the citizens. Also, anything critical of the EU will get you downvoted into oblivion on HN. I sincerely hope that the upcoming EU elections will open people's eyes to the waning support for the EU's faux democracy. (In the Netherlands there is currently a large crowdsourcing initiative being set up to counteract the EU's censorship of the election results. Although most voters are likely to simply boycott these fake elections.)
  - techsupporter 12y ago
    What do you mean, censorship of the election results? Genuine question, I haven't heard of this. (Perhaps that's by design.)
    - beejiu 12y ago
      I think he's referring to an issue with the European Union laws which state that election results must be held back until all member states have finished voting. However, in the Netherlands, it is law that results must be counted immediately and published as soon as they are counted. So, in the previous election, the vote was technically illegal under Netherland's laws. However, this time around, it seems Netherlands isn't holding a vote until the last day of voting.
  - DasIch 12y ago
    You do realize that the EU is becoming steadily more "democratic" and especially this election is an important milestone for this process? While there certainly is a problem in how democratic the EU is, they are steadily working on solving this problem.
    - beejiu 12y ago
brador 12y ago
Why didn't he ask the newspaper to remove his information? Is Google to remove the search results (the link) or just their cache?
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  Mario Costeja González sued both Google and the Newspaper to remove the data, asking both to completely memory hole that his property was ever put up for auction. This includes links in the search results.
  - ksec 12y ago
    While I agree you should be able to delete something off the internet ( to a certain degree ). How is putting up something for auction, which is an act of public disclosure, be a privacy issue? I am not sure about Spain, but there are plenty of countries in today's world which have the flat / house selling price listed for the past 10 - 20 years.
- a3_nm 12y ago
  I'm too lazy to look up a primary source for this, but it seems that the newspaper article was published as a legal obligation: http://www.nextinpact.com/news/87482-existe-t-il-droit-a-oubli-contre-moteur-google.htm http://www.nextinpact.com/news/87482-existe-t-il-droit-a-oub... "La CNIL espagnole avait rejeté la réclamation contre le journal puisque les informations avaient été publiées en raison de contrainte légale.", meaning, "The Spanish equivalent of the CNIL http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL had rejected the claim against the newspaper as the data had been published due to legal constraint [sic]".
- ds9 12y ago
  The court is making a distinction that may be hard to define because it is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. It's OK for this auction to be advertised locally, but not further from the area? Does this apply to any aggregation or reposting of data that is publicly listed somewhere else, if it mentions identifiable individuals?
pekko 12y ago
The decision rules that it would be Google's responsibility to filter search results, instead of the responsibility of actual page removing private data. So you can find the data if you know where to look at, just don't use Google?
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  I think the problem is that if it isn't on Google it's highly unlikely people will find it unless they were looking for it. If your fear is people accidentally discovering it while doing a search on you (e.g. an potential employer) removing it from Google is key.
- baq 12y ago
  it's both. if the original site changes the data, you still need/want to remove it from caches, be it google, wayback machine, other search engines, etc. it's going to be a mess.
- ds9 12y ago
  From the decision: "... the activity of a search engine consisting in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference must be classified as 'processing of personal data' within the meaning of Article 2(b) when that information contains personal data and, second, the operator of the search engine must be regarded as the 'controller' in respect of that processing, within the meaning of Article 2(d)." Hopefully replying to requests will be sufficient. Otherwise, even simply the obligation to detect that there is something the law requires to be removed will be a new burden on search engines and any similar services.
jerguismi 12y ago
One quite an important fact is forgotten there, that publishing information is basically irreversible action. Even if google removed the information from their search engines, other search engines probably won't. And of course decentralized solutions to search engines are coming also, where information can't be removed even theoretically (for example, yacy.de)
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  I think what's more important here is that I'd have to right to ask the company to delete my info, even if it doesn't completely disappear from the web. If I ask Facebook to delete my account, then it better delete everything it has ever collected about me, no questions asked. Facebook may or may not do that right now (who really knows, when they change their privacy policy several times a year), and if it does it, it's mainly because of some recent lawsuits in Europe. It used to be very reluctant to do so. Some companies, and I think Facebook, too, argue that once you gave them your data then it's "theirs". That's not right, and they shouldn't be allowed to act like that.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    These are two different issues. Yes, Facebook should delete your info when you request them to. However, I find it more than a bit disturbing that someone can use the courts to force entities to pull public information that is less than flattering about them. Would you hold this decision in the same regard if it were about a CEO that was trying to bury that he was sued in the past?
    - ZenPro 12y ago
      You are confusing two separate issues. Social Networks and Search Engines are not sources of administrative data. A CEO cannot bury that he was sued as the matter is a public record. Should he be able to have that information removed from search engines who provide no context and social media accounts he owned? Absolutely.
aquadrop 12y ago
So where this sensitive information starts? If I write on my blog something like "Today I went to the zoo and saw John Doe talking to giraffes", will John Doe have the right to force me delete this text?
- seren 12y ago
  If John Doe was supposed to be on a business travel, but was actually at the zoo with his mistress, it can cause harm. You should retort that it was John's mistake in the first place to lie and cheat, and that is not your fault, and that maybe he should be rightfully punished. However, we are all humans, and no one is perfect. Very basically the "right to privacy" is the right to make errors and to not be judged for something you said or did twenty years ago. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.
  - Sanddancer 12y ago
    At the same time, if one is able to bully people into keeping quiet, it becomes a lot harder to find patterns of misbehavior, and to avoid persons who are better worth avoiding. Mr Costeja González had a dispute with a government agency 25 years ago, most people will not give much notice to that nowadays. However, his attempts at litigating away his past, in my opinion, reflect a lot more on his lack of character.
    - samastur 12y ago
      I have no idea what kind of character mr. Gonzalez is (and suspect neither do you), but how about this hypothetical example. Imagine you were wrongly accused of child abuse 20 years ago. Charges were eventually dropped for lack of evidence. Do you really think information like this would have no influence on your life or that you wouldn't care? I know far too little about this ruling to have an opinion of its impact, but I am not a free-speech absolutist because of cases like the above where lives are unjustly impacted long after publication.
      - Sanddancer 12y ago
nissehulth 12y ago
Not just a can of worms, more like a full barrel. Shouldn't the publisher of the data be the one you turn to in the first place? I hope there is more to this story than is being told by Reuters.
dasil003 12y ago
I sincerely think it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals's rights, but they are overestimating the power of the law. A thing can't be removed from the Internet once published, and forcing Google to remove it from their index is at best a middling measure that may slightly limit the exposure of said material. I wish the court would grant me the right to fly as well, but it's beyond their power. I guess they just need a few more decades for the judges to die off and for the new old men to have a better intuitive understanding of the way the digital world works.
- icebraining 12y ago
  A court can't prevent you from being killed by a car either, but should that mean it shouldn't punish someone driving drunk? Even if that is, at best, a middling measure that may slightly limit the probability of someone getting hit by one? I'm not saying I agree with this decision - I'm on the fence due to the concerns about freedom of speech - but I find that argument unpersuasive.
- UweSchmidt 12y ago
  The law can be quite powerful, if you think of the length that corporations go these day to ensure compliance - the word "compliance" alone will probably trigger emotions in everyone who has worked in a large company recently. When a CEO could go to prison for something, then the organization will adapt accordingly.
  - dasil003 12y ago
    > "the organization" Therein lies the problem. Courts can play whack-a-mole all day, but it's very hard to suppress something on the Internet. The only sensible thing to do is go after the original publisher and then Google takes care of itself. This idea of forcing takedown on search engines is treating the symptom not the disease.
    - izacus 12y ago
      Taking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.
mxfh 12y ago
Judgement and Opinions of Case C‑131/12 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-131/12 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-131/12 Judgement Text: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=252458 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...
- nyrina 12y ago
  What would happen if Britney Spears came along and asked Google and every other search engine to delete everything about her on the internet? Even if Google went ahead and deleted every link to every story about her today, she would have a new million of articles about her tomorrow (Most likely about the fact that search engines doesn't give any Britney Spears results anymore) How does this law affect celebrities? Are they considered in the public eye and unprotected? Or are they persons, as well? Can anyone clarify? Perhaps Britney Spears is a bad example, as she is a US citizen. What about Till Lindemann, lead vocal of the German Metal band, Rammstein?
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Start from existing data protection rules and procedure: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/conditions_for_processing#para12 http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guid... "Information made public by the subject" is exempt, even if the subject regrets that disclosure. There's also exemptions for news reporting and other purposes: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/exemptions http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guid... (Those references are to UK law, but this area of law is part of EU harmonisation and should therefore be basically the same in most EU countries)
    - bradleyjg 12y ago
      There is an exception for newsgathering but apparently not for linking to news articles. That was the exact circumstance of the case at hand—the newspaper was left out of the appeal but Google was ordered not to link to the newspaper. An odd result.
ozim 12y ago
"The company says forcing it to remove such data amounts to censorship." Don't they see that personal censorship is something good opposed to government censorship?
- Dwolb 12y ago
  One argument for why this is a bad idea has its roots in politics. Imagine if a candidate running for office (or any public figure) had the ability to santitize his search results to remove all 'bad' listings. The public perception of a candidate or political figure could always be distorted in a manner that is always favorable to the candidate. Public dissent could therefore be surpressed. Note though, I'm not necessarily for or against this bill. It could be very useful fot private citizens but we should consider how public figures are effected as well.
  - ozim 12y ago
    I think that public figures should not be evaluated by "some things in the internet" it is easy for opponents to craft "bad" listings. On the other hand I think public figures have more power to remove such things if they have connections, lawyers and simply more money than average Joe.
  - SEMW 12y ago
    > Note though, I'm not necessarily for or against this bill. What bill are you referring to? If you mean the EU data protection directive that this decision's interpreting, it's been law since 1995.
babarock 12y ago
A couple of questions pop to mind: - Will that affect the work of archive.org and the wayback machine? - Is it okay for a politician to "erase" something he/she said 10 years ago?
- mpweiher 12y ago
  To the second: no. This is of public interest and public record.
  - 1337biz 12y ago
    But what about a few month before he declares his interest for running for office?
- ronaldx 12y ago
  The wayback machine seems (to me) to be breaking EU law before we get to data protection; there is a copyright issue as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine#Legal_status
  - vixin 12y ago
    And what about my personal records of anything I see that looks interesting?
- mrweasel 12y ago
  The question that pop into my mind is "What about purchase history?" We run a webshop and sometimes a get customer that demands that we delete all their information. They are entitled to make that demand, but at the same time we're required to store the same information for at least two year, in order to be able to handle returns, and maybe five years due to accounting. I really do applaud the court for their intentions, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions and challenges. In our case we would have to make serious changes to our ERP/CRM systems, it currently do not allow deletion of data, because that would be bad for accounting. Also: Can I deny you warrenty because you requested that I delete all data regarding your purchase and person?
buro9 12y ago
So how does one go about asking Google to remove a front page search result about yourself that you do not wish to exist? Google are famed for having virtually no way of contacting them, does it require the individual to jump through hoops to do so? And no, not thinking of myself... but wondering just whether there are mechanisms available already to those who will now seek to exercise their right.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  It will require a judge in the EU who will submit his findings to the legal representative of Google EU. If there will be enough of these cases infrastructure for the legal representative to handle the cases will be put in place; but I didn't see any requirements for Google to offer a procedure for taking down personal info.
  - DasIch 12y ago
    If this is a right you as a citizen have it will probably not require a judge at all. As this is legal stuff an email probably won't do but if you send them a letter Google probably has to comply without a judge ordering them to.
    - mtrimpe 12y ago
      The wording is very cautious though (under certain provisions, in certain circumstances, etc.) implying that it very much still is at the court's discretion.
D9u 12y ago
The NSA, etc, never forgets...
krisgenre 12y ago
The reason why most applications don't have an undo operation is because it is something that needs to designed from the ground up. Its really too late for the Internet to have an undo.
cyberneticcook 12y ago
The biggest issue is that we don't own our data. It's stored in Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc.. servers. It should work the other way around, every individual should keep his own data and provide permissions to external services and other people to access it. Is there any project looking into this direction ? How do we reverse this situation ?
- Pacabel 12y ago
  Umm, we used to call those "personal websites". They were the norm during much of the 1990s. They did take some time, effort, skill and money to set up, but they did give far more control over what information was shared, and who had access to it.
  - cyberneticcook 12y ago
    that's not what I meant. For example when using a mobile app, you can give access to your contact list, your position, your pictures etc...All data is stored on your phone and each application must get permission to access your data. What I would like is to extend this model to the web, so that any service that require some information from me will have to ask permission to get it rather than having me store a copy on their database.
    - Silhouette 12y ago
      If you are asking whether anyone working is working on a truly distributed social network, then the short answer is that a number of projects are trying but no-one has been very successful so far. It does seem like this is a matter of time, though. We managed to build the entire Internet as a system of systems that work together remarkably effectively despite no one authority having universal control of everything. The main thing keeping sites like Facebook safe today is the critical mass of customers they have, and the fact that current sentiments (and the occasional multi-million dollar marketing effort) encourage newcomers to put their data "in the cloud" in return for not paying any money to store it and not having to worry about the technical details. There are certainly technically viable alternatives.
buro9 12y ago
I could and would argue that there are times in which a person should have the right to not be found. An example scenario: Alice is a victim of a crime, reports the crime and Bob is arrested and goes on trial. Bob pleads not guilty and Alice participates in the trial as a witness. Bob is sentenced, the court record is made. The Daily News (fictional paper) reports on the court records of the day and has a reporter who attends the more interesting cases, and mentions Bob's sentence and gives some of Alice's statements as quotes. In that scenario, the court record should always be a matter of public record, a statement of fact. The newspaper certainly has the right to access public record and to make a news story of the set of facts that are in the public record. But, here starts the problems... Alice applies for a job and the employer Googles her name and comes across the news article. There are many types of crimes in which the public have great difficulty accepting a victim is a victim. For example, rape. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the culture of victim blaming means that a matter of public record has just had the effect of defaming Alice. Alice as a victim is never given the opportunity to move on with her life when every person that ever searches for her will find the story very quickly. She has been sentenced too by participating in the justice system, which is an open book. The newspaper, just as in this case, will argue this is public record and cannot be silenced. Sure, I agree... but that doesn't mean that it's in the victims interest that the information be extraordinarily easy to find. And Google are a better place in which to attempt to stop the information being found, given that they (and only 1 or 2 other search engines) cover the vast majority of searches made about someone. Alice certainly does have the right to make information that she didn't explicitly choose to make public and that can cause her harm not be found so easily, even when that information is a matter of fact and public record. She has the right to not be found (by that method - Google). PS: I know a girl experiencing almost exactly that scenario, who cannot get a news story off of the front page results for her name. This isn't even a stretch scenario. The local newspaper just hasn't bothered responding to requests.
- namelezz 12y ago
  What's about Bob? Should employer be able to Google Bob?
  - 12y ago
aerophilic 12y ago
Question: Assuming for a moment that there is a right to be "forgotten". Should that right be permanent? I would argue that while it is relevant during a person's lifetime, it actually would hurt the public good if we made it permanent. My thought process goes out to say 100 years from now, where there may be researchers/family members that want to know more. Should they still be restricted well after I am dead? Thoughts?
- probably_wrong 12y ago
  I don't think there's an answer to that. Let's take Kafka, for instance. He gave explicit instructions for his work to be burned after his death. His executor Max Brod ignored this request, and published them anyway. The result? Both "The Trial" and "The Castle" managed to see the light. This is a clear case of the public good being richer due to a non-permanent "right to be forgotten". But then again, we also have James Joyce. His executor destroyed some personal letters, but some others survived. Thanks to that, we have some very dirty letters he sent someone. Reading those doesn't really teaches us anything about his works, but seriously casts him in a bad (or at least, unflattering) light[1]. So back to Kafka. There are still unpublished papers that should have been destroyed, but weren't, but at the same time haven't been published yet[2]. So what if Kafka's remaining papers cast him in an equally bad light as Joyce? Is it okay for us to ignore his specific request for those papers to be destroyed? I don't really know. I could imagine some kind of experts voting on that (the same way that we never managed to see Stever Irwin's death video), but it's an idea with many obvious flaws. [1] http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=32 http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=32 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafka#Unpublished_papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafka#Unpublished_papers
  - ars 12y ago
    Once someone is dead their right to privacy is significantly diminished.
stuki 12y ago
I guess the takeaway is: Don't operate Big Data companies out of Europe..... Pack up your bags, apply for YC and move to SV instead... All harassing publicly famous entities will achieve, is to make obtaining available information more difficult for regular people. While those with deeper pockets and better connections, will simply pay niche providers for deeper searches and indexing. From a privacy POV, you would WANT this kind of White Hat demonstrations of where your privacy weak points are. That way, you are aware of them and can make accommodations. While third party services can spring up to address the most widespread concerns. Rather than show up for a job interview, and have the interviewer "know" something about you, that you have no idea is available to them at all.
fixermark 12y ago
"Dearest Max, my last request: Everything I leave behind me ... in the way of diaries, manuscripts, letters (my own and others'), sketches, and so on, [is] to be burned unread." ~Franz Kafka ... and I wonder how much of the work of a genius would have been lost forever if his wishes had been honored.
hartator 12y ago
Weirdly, I think it's more for politicians to forgot their past mistakes and their past actions than for the average citizen. Taking France as an example, a lot of content (An good example will be some old racist video of our actual primer minister, past corruption of the mayor of one of major cities, stupid tweets...) is going to be censored and removed from the internet. And this is going to happen. Don't ever think one minute, the first thousand of "forgottenness" will be for citizens and not for politics. I think that's one of the stupidest backward law ever. Thanks for fucking up the internet.
- boredlawyer 12y ago
  Nope. Politicians, celebrities aka „public figures“ do not have the same rights to privacy. (due widely judicially established consensus in human rights/constitutional „continetal european law“). Therefore private person has judicially enforceable right for protect his private life to higher extend than public figures. More often many European countries would not prohibit public display of “personal data” such as name, home address etc. Not only concerning all crime victims and children, but often also court rulings while being public, are published in such way, that names and other personal data is removed. So when you’d google a name of a person, public court ruling proclaiming foreclosure of his property would not appear in the search result, while some blog/news outlet could. The ruling only reacts to reality of modern day, that information doesn’t disappear. So while 50 years ago (or as today) the article about someone’s foreclosure would still be reachable in newspaper archives, library etc., but not via two seconds by googling. So if the right to privacy ought to be a real “human right” it needs to be effectively pursuable, so court seeks an approach when there is no reason to delete the newspaper article (it’s not fraudulent or slanderous”) but it’s digital trace via search engine interferes with one’s right to privacy. I anticipate that EU, or individual countries will react by enacting/changing laws how to procedurally enforce that newly established right. How and when to file such request for removal of search result.
Karunamon 12y ago
I am not looking forward to how this will impact discussion forums like the one we're on. Someone wants to be forgotten, therefore we must remove all posts someone made and destroy the context for everyone who may come along afterwards? Just ick. Ick ick ick. More ill-thought-out "feel good" legislation like the cookie law.

247 points by kevcampb 12y ago

I am not sure how most countries in the EU handle the press, but without digging into this too much, it seems like this ruling greatly limits the freedom of press. What if a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader or someone closely related with them? Does that person have the "right" to kill the right that the free press has to go public with the information? I really don't think something like this would stand up in the US at all, but I'm unfamiliar with press laws in most of Europe.

SEMW 12y ago
"What do we do when fundamental right X of person A conflicts with fundamental right Y of person B" is a question courts have been asking and answering for a very long time. There's a hell of a lot of ECtHR and CJEU case law on how to balance competing rights. I don't imagine it's any different in the US. The US may draw the line a little further towards the direction of freedom of the press and away from privacy etc. than Europe does, but it's not like it's an unqualified right on either side of the pond.
- magicalist 12y ago
  "I'm sure there's case law that establishes some kind of balance" isn't really any kind of answer to the GP's questions...
  - SEMW 12y ago
    ..What would you consider an answer? GP asked what would happen. Answer: a balancing exercise. If you want some examples (from the UK, as that's where I live), try Campbell v MGN [2003], or In Re S (A Child) [2005]. From the latter: "First, neither article [8 (privacy) nor 10 (freedom of speech)] has as such precedence over the other. Secondly, where the values under the two articles are in conflict, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary. Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account. Finally, the proportionality test must be applied to each." If you want my prediction on what'd happen if "a scandal is uncovered regarding a political leader... [can they stop the press going public using EU data protection legislation]", I'd say: no. Like, that's not even close to the borderline. Data protection legislation isn't even relevant to press reporting current events, anyway - more relevant for a (UK) political leader would be better off trying to stop a story is defamation law, which is subject to a whole other set of controls and defences.

beejiu 12y ago

And they wonder why so many Brits want to leave the EU.

bowlofpetunias 12y ago
Actually, privacy protection is one of few issues in which the EU is on the side of the citizens. Also, anything critical of the EU will get you downvoted into oblivion on HN. I sincerely hope that the upcoming EU elections will open people's eyes to the waning support for the EU's faux democracy. (In the Netherlands there is currently a large crowdsourcing initiative being set up to counteract the EU's censorship of the election results. Although most voters are likely to simply boycott these fake elections.)
- techsupporter 12y ago
  What do you mean, censorship of the election results? Genuine question, I haven't heard of this. (Perhaps that's by design.)
  - beejiu 12y ago
    I think he's referring to an issue with the European Union laws which state that election results must be held back until all member states have finished voting. However, in the Netherlands, it is law that results must be counted immediately and published as soon as they are counted. So, in the previous election, the vote was technically illegal under Netherland's laws. However, this time around, it seems Netherlands isn't holding a vote until the last day of voting.
- DasIch 12y ago
  You do realize that the EU is becoming steadily more "democratic" and especially this election is an important milestone for this process? While there certainly is a problem in how democratic the EU is, they are steadily working on solving this problem.
  - beejiu 12y ago

brador 12y ago

Why didn't he ask the newspaper to remove his information? Is Google to remove the search results (the link) or just their cache?

Sanddancer 12y ago
Mario Costeja González sued both Google and the Newspaper to remove the data, asking both to completely memory hole that his property was ever put up for auction. This includes links in the search results.
- ksec 12y ago
  While I agree you should be able to delete something off the internet ( to a certain degree ). How is putting up something for auction, which is an act of public disclosure, be a privacy issue? I am not sure about Spain, but there are plenty of countries in today's world which have the flat / house selling price listed for the past 10 - 20 years.
a3_nm 12y ago
I'm too lazy to look up a primary source for this, but it seems that the newspaper article was published as a legal obligation: http://www.nextinpact.com/news/87482-existe-t-il-droit-a-oubli-contre-moteur-google.htm http://www.nextinpact.com/news/87482-existe-t-il-droit-a-oub... "La CNIL espagnole avait rejeté la réclamation contre le journal puisque les informations avaient été publiées en raison de contrainte légale.", meaning, "The Spanish equivalent of the CNIL http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL had rejected the claim against the newspaper as the data had been published due to legal constraint [sic]".
ds9 12y ago
The court is making a distinction that may be hard to define because it is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. It's OK for this auction to be advertised locally, but not further from the area? Does this apply to any aggregation or reposting of data that is publicly listed somewhere else, if it mentions identifiable individuals?

pekko 12y ago

The decision rules that it would be Google's responsibility to filter search results, instead of the responsibility of actual page removing private data. So you can find the data if you know where to look at, just don't use Google?

k-mcgrady 12y ago
I think the problem is that if it isn't on Google it's highly unlikely people will find it unless they were looking for it. If your fear is people accidentally discovering it while doing a search on you (e.g. an potential employer) removing it from Google is key.
baq 12y ago
it's both. if the original site changes the data, you still need/want to remove it from caches, be it google, wayback machine, other search engines, etc. it's going to be a mess.
ds9 12y ago
From the decision: "... the activity of a search engine consisting in finding information published or placed on the internet by third parties, indexing it automatically, storing it temporarily and, finally, making it available to internet users according to a particular order of preference must be classified as 'processing of personal data' within the meaning of Article 2(b) when that information contains personal data and, second, the operator of the search engine must be regarded as the 'controller' in respect of that processing, within the meaning of Article 2(d)." Hopefully replying to requests will be sufficient. Otherwise, even simply the obligation to detect that there is something the law requires to be removed will be a new burden on search engines and any similar services.

jerguismi 12y ago

One quite an important fact is forgotten there, that publishing information is basically irreversible action. Even if google removed the information from their search engines, other search engines probably won't. And of course decentralized solutions to search engines are coming also, where information can't be removed even theoretically (for example, yacy.de)

higherpurpose 12y ago
I think what's more important here is that I'd have to right to ask the company to delete my info, even if it doesn't completely disappear from the web. If I ask Facebook to delete my account, then it better delete everything it has ever collected about me, no questions asked. Facebook may or may not do that right now (who really knows, when they change their privacy policy several times a year), and if it does it, it's mainly because of some recent lawsuits in Europe. It used to be very reluctant to do so. Some companies, and I think Facebook, too, argue that once you gave them your data then it's "theirs". That's not right, and they shouldn't be allowed to act like that.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  These are two different issues. Yes, Facebook should delete your info when you request them to. However, I find it more than a bit disturbing that someone can use the courts to force entities to pull public information that is less than flattering about them. Would you hold this decision in the same regard if it were about a CEO that was trying to bury that he was sued in the past?
  - ZenPro 12y ago
    You are confusing two separate issues. Social Networks and Search Engines are not sources of administrative data. A CEO cannot bury that he was sued as the matter is a public record. Should he be able to have that information removed from search engines who provide no context and social media accounts he owned? Absolutely.

aquadrop 12y ago

So where this sensitive information starts? If I write on my blog something like "Today I went to the zoo and saw John Doe talking to giraffes", will John Doe have the right to force me delete this text?

seren 12y ago
If John Doe was supposed to be on a business travel, but was actually at the zoo with his mistress, it can cause harm. You should retort that it was John's mistake in the first place to lie and cheat, and that is not your fault, and that maybe he should be rightfully punished. However, we are all humans, and no one is perfect. Very basically the "right to privacy" is the right to make errors and to not be judged for something you said or did twenty years ago. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc.
- Sanddancer 12y ago
  At the same time, if one is able to bully people into keeping quiet, it becomes a lot harder to find patterns of misbehavior, and to avoid persons who are better worth avoiding. Mr Costeja González had a dispute with a government agency 25 years ago, most people will not give much notice to that nowadays. However, his attempts at litigating away his past, in my opinion, reflect a lot more on his lack of character.
  - samastur 12y ago
    I have no idea what kind of character mr. Gonzalez is (and suspect neither do you), but how about this hypothetical example. Imagine you were wrongly accused of child abuse 20 years ago. Charges were eventually dropped for lack of evidence. Do you really think information like this would have no influence on your life or that you wouldn't care? I know far too little about this ruling to have an opinion of its impact, but I am not a free-speech absolutist because of cases like the above where lives are unjustly impacted long after publication.
    - Sanddancer 12y ago

nissehulth 12y ago

Not just a can of worms, more like a full barrel. Shouldn't the publisher of the data be the one you turn to in the first place? I hope there is more to this story than is being told by Reuters.

dasil003 12y ago

I sincerely think it's a good thing for the courts to look out for individuals's rights, but they are overestimating the power of the law. A thing can't be removed from the Internet once published, and forcing Google to remove it from their index is at best a middling measure that may slightly limit the exposure of said material. I wish the court would grant me the right to fly as well, but it's beyond their power. I guess they just need a few more decades for the judges to die off and for the new old men to have a better intuitive understanding of the way the digital world works.

icebraining 12y ago
A court can't prevent you from being killed by a car either, but should that mean it shouldn't punish someone driving drunk? Even if that is, at best, a middling measure that may slightly limit the probability of someone getting hit by one? I'm not saying I agree with this decision - I'm on the fence due to the concerns about freedom of speech - but I find that argument unpersuasive.
UweSchmidt 12y ago
The law can be quite powerful, if you think of the length that corporations go these day to ensure compliance - the word "compliance" alone will probably trigger emotions in everyone who has worked in a large company recently. When a CEO could go to prison for something, then the organization will adapt accordingly.
- dasil003 12y ago
  > "the organization" Therein lies the problem. Courts can play whack-a-mole all day, but it's very hard to suppress something on the Internet. The only sensible thing to do is go after the original publisher and then Google takes care of itself. This idea of forcing takedown on search engines is treating the symptom not the disease.
  - izacus 12y ago
    Taking down the source is pointless when Google keeps the results and caches the contents.

mxfh 12y ago

Judgement and Opinions of Case C‑131/12 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-131/12 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-131/12 Judgement Text: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=252458 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&doc...

nyrina 12y ago
What would happen if Britney Spears came along and asked Google and every other search engine to delete everything about her on the internet? Even if Google went ahead and deleted every link to every story about her today, she would have a new million of articles about her tomorrow (Most likely about the fact that search engines doesn't give any Britney Spears results anymore) How does this law affect celebrities? Are they considered in the public eye and unprotected? Or are they persons, as well? Can anyone clarify? Perhaps Britney Spears is a bad example, as she is a US citizen. What about Till Lindemann, lead vocal of the German Metal band, Rammstein?
- pjc50 12y ago
  Start from existing data protection rules and procedure: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/conditions_for_processing#para12 http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guid... "Information made public by the subject" is exempt, even if the subject regrets that disclosure. There's also exemptions for news reporting and other purposes: http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/exemptions http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guid... (Those references are to UK law, but this area of law is part of EU harmonisation and should therefore be basically the same in most EU countries)
  - bradleyjg 12y ago
    There is an exception for newsgathering but apparently not for linking to news articles. That was the exact circumstance of the case at hand—the newspaper was left out of the appeal but Google was ordered not to link to the newspaper. An odd result.

ozim 12y ago

"The company says forcing it to remove such data amounts to censorship." Don't they see that personal censorship is something good opposed to government censorship?

Dwolb 12y ago
One argument for why this is a bad idea has its roots in politics. Imagine if a candidate running for office (or any public figure) had the ability to santitize his search results to remove all 'bad' listings. The public perception of a candidate or political figure could always be distorted in a manner that is always favorable to the candidate. Public dissent could therefore be surpressed. Note though, I'm not necessarily for or against this bill. It could be very useful fot private citizens but we should consider how public figures are effected as well.
- ozim 12y ago
  I think that public figures should not be evaluated by "some things in the internet" it is easy for opponents to craft "bad" listings. On the other hand I think public figures have more power to remove such things if they have connections, lawyers and simply more money than average Joe.
- SEMW 12y ago
  > Note though, I'm not necessarily for or against this bill. What bill are you referring to? If you mean the EU data protection directive that this decision's interpreting, it's been law since 1995.

babarock 12y ago

A couple of questions pop to mind: - Will that affect the work of archive.org and the wayback machine? - Is it okay for a politician to "erase" something he/she said 10 years ago?

mpweiher 12y ago
To the second: no. This is of public interest and public record.
- 1337biz 12y ago
  But what about a few month before he declares his interest for running for office?
ronaldx 12y ago
The wayback machine seems (to me) to be breaking EU law before we get to data protection; there is a copyright issue as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine#Legal_status
- vixin 12y ago
  And what about my personal records of anything I see that looks interesting?
mrweasel 12y ago
The question that pop into my mind is "What about purchase history?" We run a webshop and sometimes a get customer that demands that we delete all their information. They are entitled to make that demand, but at the same time we're required to store the same information for at least two year, in order to be able to handle returns, and maybe five years due to accounting. I really do applaud the court for their intentions, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions and challenges. In our case we would have to make serious changes to our ERP/CRM systems, it currently do not allow deletion of data, because that would be bad for accounting. Also: Can I deny you warrenty because you requested that I delete all data regarding your purchase and person?

buro9 12y ago

So how does one go about asking Google to remove a front page search result about yourself that you do not wish to exist? Google are famed for having virtually no way of contacting them, does it require the individual to jump through hoops to do so? And no, not thinking of myself... but wondering just whether there are mechanisms available already to those who will now seek to exercise their right.

mtrimpe 12y ago
It will require a judge in the EU who will submit his findings to the legal representative of Google EU. If there will be enough of these cases infrastructure for the legal representative to handle the cases will be put in place; but I didn't see any requirements for Google to offer a procedure for taking down personal info.
- DasIch 12y ago
  If this is a right you as a citizen have it will probably not require a judge at all. As this is legal stuff an email probably won't do but if you send them a letter Google probably has to comply without a judge ordering them to.
  - mtrimpe 12y ago
    The wording is very cautious though (under certain provisions, in certain circumstances, etc.) implying that it very much still is at the court's discretion.

D9u 12y ago

The NSA, etc, never forgets...

krisgenre 12y ago

The reason why most applications don't have an undo operation is because it is something that needs to designed from the ground up. Its really too late for the Internet to have an undo.

cyberneticcook 12y ago

The biggest issue is that we don't own our data. It's stored in Google, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc.. servers. It should work the other way around, every individual should keep his own data and provide permissions to external services and other people to access it. Is there any project looking into this direction ? How do we reverse this situation ?

Pacabel 12y ago
Umm, we used to call those "personal websites". They were the norm during much of the 1990s. They did take some time, effort, skill and money to set up, but they did give far more control over what information was shared, and who had access to it.
- cyberneticcook 12y ago
  that's not what I meant. For example when using a mobile app, you can give access to your contact list, your position, your pictures etc...All data is stored on your phone and each application must get permission to access your data. What I would like is to extend this model to the web, so that any service that require some information from me will have to ask permission to get it rather than having me store a copy on their database.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    If you are asking whether anyone working is working on a truly distributed social network, then the short answer is that a number of projects are trying but no-one has been very successful so far. It does seem like this is a matter of time, though. We managed to build the entire Internet as a system of systems that work together remarkably effectively despite no one authority having universal control of everything. The main thing keeping sites like Facebook safe today is the critical mass of customers they have, and the fact that current sentiments (and the occasional multi-million dollar marketing effort) encourage newcomers to put their data "in the cloud" in return for not paying any money to store it and not having to worry about the technical details. There are certainly technically viable alternatives.

buro9 12y ago

I could and would argue that there are times in which a person should have the right to not be found. An example scenario: Alice is a victim of a crime, reports the crime and Bob is arrested and goes on trial. Bob pleads not guilty and Alice participates in the trial as a witness. Bob is sentenced, the court record is made. The Daily News (fictional paper) reports on the court records of the day and has a reporter who attends the more interesting cases, and mentions Bob's sentence and gives some of Alice's statements as quotes. In that scenario, the court record should always be a matter of public record, a statement of fact. The newspaper certainly has the right to access public record and to make a news story of the set of facts that are in the public record. But, here starts the problems... Alice applies for a job and the employer Googles her name and comes across the news article. There are many types of crimes in which the public have great difficulty accepting a victim is a victim. For example, rape. It isn't too much of a stretch to say that the culture of victim blaming means that a matter of public record has just had the effect of defaming Alice. Alice as a victim is never given the opportunity to move on with her life when every person that ever searches for her will find the story very quickly. She has been sentenced too by participating in the justice system, which is an open book. The newspaper, just as in this case, will argue this is public record and cannot be silenced. Sure, I agree... but that doesn't mean that it's in the victims interest that the information be extraordinarily easy to find. And Google are a better place in which to attempt to stop the information being found, given that they (and only 1 or 2 other search engines) cover the vast majority of searches made about someone. Alice certainly does have the right to make information that she didn't explicitly choose to make public and that can cause her harm not be found so easily, even when that information is a matter of fact and public record. She has the right to not be found (by that method - Google). PS: I know a girl experiencing almost exactly that scenario, who cannot get a news story off of the front page results for her name. This isn't even a stretch scenario. The local newspaper just hasn't bothered responding to requests.

namelezz 12y ago
What's about Bob? Should employer be able to Google Bob?
- 12y ago

aerophilic 12y ago

Question: Assuming for a moment that there is a right to be "forgotten". Should that right be permanent? I would argue that while it is relevant during a person's lifetime, it actually would hurt the public good if we made it permanent. My thought process goes out to say 100 years from now, where there may be researchers/family members that want to know more. Should they still be restricted well after I am dead? Thoughts?

probably_wrong 12y ago
I don't think there's an answer to that. Let's take Kafka, for instance. He gave explicit instructions for his work to be burned after his death. His executor Max Brod ignored this request, and published them anyway. The result? Both "The Trial" and "The Castle" managed to see the light. This is a clear case of the public good being richer due to a non-permanent "right to be forgotten". But then again, we also have James Joyce. His executor destroyed some personal letters, but some others survived. Thanks to that, we have some very dirty letters he sent someone. Reading those doesn't really teaches us anything about his works, but seriously casts him in a bad (or at least, unflattering) light[1]. So back to Kafka. There are still unpublished papers that should have been destroyed, but weren't, but at the same time haven't been published yet[2]. So what if Kafka's remaining papers cast him in an equally bad light as Joyce? Is it okay for us to ignore his specific request for those papers to be destroyed? I don't really know. I could imagine some kind of experts voting on that (the same way that we never managed to see Stever Irwin's death video), but it's an idea with many obvious flaws. [1] http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=32 http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=32 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafka#Unpublished_papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafka#Unpublished_papers
- ars 12y ago
  Once someone is dead their right to privacy is significantly diminished.

stuki 12y ago

I guess the takeaway is: Don't operate Big Data companies out of Europe..... Pack up your bags, apply for YC and move to SV instead... All harassing publicly famous entities will achieve, is to make obtaining available information more difficult for regular people. While those with deeper pockets and better connections, will simply pay niche providers for deeper searches and indexing. From a privacy POV, you would WANT this kind of White Hat demonstrations of where your privacy weak points are. That way, you are aware of them and can make accommodations. While third party services can spring up to address the most widespread concerns. Rather than show up for a job interview, and have the interviewer "know" something about you, that you have no idea is available to them at all.

fixermark 12y ago

"Dearest Max, my last request: Everything I leave behind me ... in the way of diaries, manuscripts, letters (my own and others'), sketches, and so on, [is] to be burned unread." ~Franz Kafka ... and I wonder how much of the work of a genius would have been lost forever if his wishes had been honored.

hartator 12y ago

Weirdly, I think it's more for politicians to forgot their past mistakes and their past actions than for the average citizen. Taking France as an example, a lot of content (An good example will be some old racist video of our actual primer minister, past corruption of the mayor of one of major cities, stupid tweets...) is going to be censored and removed from the internet. And this is going to happen. Don't ever think one minute, the first thousand of "forgottenness" will be for citizens and not for politics. I think that's one of the stupidest backward law ever. Thanks for fucking up the internet.

boredlawyer 12y ago
Nope. Politicians, celebrities aka „public figures“ do not have the same rights to privacy. (due widely judicially established consensus in human rights/constitutional „continetal european law“). Therefore private person has judicially enforceable right for protect his private life to higher extend than public figures. More often many European countries would not prohibit public display of “personal data” such as name, home address etc. Not only concerning all crime victims and children, but often also court rulings while being public, are published in such way, that names and other personal data is removed. So when you’d google a name of a person, public court ruling proclaiming foreclosure of his property would not appear in the search result, while some blog/news outlet could. The ruling only reacts to reality of modern day, that information doesn’t disappear. So while 50 years ago (or as today) the article about someone’s foreclosure would still be reachable in newspaper archives, library etc., but not via two seconds by googling. So if the right to privacy ought to be a real “human right” it needs to be effectively pursuable, so court seeks an approach when there is no reason to delete the newspaper article (it’s not fraudulent or slanderous”) but it’s digital trace via search engine interferes with one’s right to privacy. I anticipate that EU, or individual countries will react by enacting/changing laws how to procedurally enforce that newly established right. How and when to file such request for removal of search result.

Karunamon 12y ago

I am not looking forward to how this will impact discussion forums like the one we're on. Someone wants to be forgotten, therefore we must remove all posts someone made and destroy the context for everyone who may come along afterwards? Just ick. Ick ick ick. More ill-thought-out "feel good" legislation like the cookie law.