5 ms·

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, report

by 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?
- buro9 12y ago
  Yes and no. In the EU, Bob is dealt with by various laws that cover the rehabilitation of offenders. A petty crime is essentially wiped from public record after some period of time, and a major crime isn't. Bob's rights depends on what he is convicted of, if he is convicted at all. And in the case of a sex-crime or violent crime, then there are further laws that cover that. It depends what Bob did, and importantly whether he was convicted of it. The ruling doesn't conflict with existing law, it clarifies and extends existing law.
  - celticninja 12y ago
    Not exactly correct. If bob is accused of rape then he can be named as an alleged rapist. If he is acquitted of the charges and you Google his name you will still see the rape charges story and perhaps the "acquitted" story is buried or just not in the first few pages of results. Worse still if charges are dropped then all you will really find on Google is the fact he was arrested for rape.
regoldste 12y ago
You make a good argument about why she has an interest in not being found/identified with this information. To be sure, there are good reasons why she would want to distance herself from this event in her life. By the way, that is the reason that many newspapers (e.g., the NYTimes)have policies against reporting the names of rape victims, precisely because of the stigmatic effects on the victim. But why is her interest in privacy sufficient to create a right protected by the law? What about the conflicting interests--including existing legal rights--of others to learn about and to publish that information? What concerns me the most is the unimaginably fraught task of administrating these rights. The EU Court suggested a highly problematic standard: data that is "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant" must be deleted upon request. Who decides what is adequate and relevant? Relevant to whom, and for what? Adequate for what? Is relevance now the standard for what information can exist online? Who is the arbiter of relevance? And how is this administered as a technical matter? Does Google delete the entire article, or just redact the sensitive information? What if there is other important information in that same article/site/page? Does the public now lose access to the entire article, which surely contains other useful information? This policy seems extremely ill-advised.
- buro9 12y ago
  > But why is her interest in privacy sufficient to create a right protected by the law? No new right has been created. The ruling clarifies the overlap between existing laws. The right to privacy is already there as a fundamental right within EU law. The ruling is pretty clear that data processing must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of a person, specifically including privacy. The ruling states that whilst Google had the right to process the data at the point in time in which it did so, it no longer had the right at a later point in time. The record of fact remains as a historical document, but the ruling is very narrow and says that the data processing of those facts (displaying of search results) may, at a later date, be in conflict with a persons fundamental rights. At such a point in time, the data processing isn't permitted. As with most things regarding the EU, if you sit down and read it a lot of it is fairly dull, pragmatic and reasonable.
  - regoldste 12y ago
ASneakyFox 12y ago
yes but an emplyer can still find that information. it still exists. the record is either public information or not. there's no middle ground. a record being "public but must be made really difficult to find" is completely illogical. and a scene from hitchikers guide to the galaxy
- buro9 12y ago
  These two things are not illogical. The record can exist and it might be a breach of someone's fundamental right to privacy to make that record available via data processing. The ruling did not state that the record will not cease to exist or would not be accessible, but that data processing of the information could be a breach of the person's right to privacy. Another example: Let's say Bob actually only did commit a very minor crime. In the EU the ability to rehabilitate is protected by law. Only certain government departments have the right to access certain classes of crimes on a criminal record after n years. If you were to make a database of court judgements (nearly all of which are a public record of fact), and make available Bob's criminal record after n years had passed. You would definitely be in breach of the law. This has existed in law for a long time and isn't completely illogical. Read the ruling, it acknowledges records of fact and states that the right to process those records doesn't trump the fundamental rights. It's why they're called fundamental rights and data processing isn't on that list of fundamental rights.
  - spankalee 12y ago
    What a library that keeps physical copies or microfiche of newspapers reporting the crime. Do they have to cut out the articles? If not, what about any indices - do they have to find and remove references to Bob from any physical indices? Or only ones that are computerized?
    - buro9 12y ago
      The ruling was very clear, read it. The ruling clarified "data processing" of the records, not the existence of the records. Google, as a search engine, performs data processing. That it holds the record wasn't touched by the ruling, but the press has mentioned "removed" when actually it is "don't data process" which has the effect of ensuring the record doesn't appear on a results page, but does not actually remove the record from existence.

by buro9 12y ago

namelezz 12y ago

What's about Bob? Should employer be able to Google Bob?

buro9 12y ago
Yes and no. In the EU, Bob is dealt with by various laws that cover the rehabilitation of offenders. A petty crime is essentially wiped from public record after some period of time, and a major crime isn't. Bob's rights depends on what he is convicted of, if he is convicted at all. And in the case of a sex-crime or violent crime, then there are further laws that cover that. It depends what Bob did, and importantly whether he was convicted of it. The ruling doesn't conflict with existing law, it clarifies and extends existing law.
- celticninja 12y ago
  Not exactly correct. If bob is accused of rape then he can be named as an alleged rapist. If he is acquitted of the charges and you Google his name you will still see the rape charges story and perhaps the "acquitted" story is buried or just not in the first few pages of results. Worse still if charges are dropped then all you will really find on Google is the fact he was arrested for rape.

regoldste 12y ago

You make a good argument about why she has an interest in not being found/identified with this information. To be sure, there are good reasons why she would want to distance herself from this event in her life. By the way, that is the reason that many newspapers (e.g., the NYTimes)have policies against reporting the names of rape victims, precisely because of the stigmatic effects on the victim. But why is her interest in privacy sufficient to create a right protected by the law? What about the conflicting interests--including existing legal rights--of others to learn about and to publish that information? What concerns me the most is the unimaginably fraught task of administrating these rights. The EU Court suggested a highly problematic standard: data that is "inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant" must be deleted upon request. Who decides what is adequate and relevant? Relevant to whom, and for what? Adequate for what? Is relevance now the standard for what information can exist online? Who is the arbiter of relevance? And how is this administered as a technical matter? Does Google delete the entire article, or just redact the sensitive information? What if there is other important information in that same article/site/page? Does the public now lose access to the entire article, which surely contains other useful information? This policy seems extremely ill-advised.

buro9 12y ago
> But why is her interest in privacy sufficient to create a right protected by the law? No new right has been created. The ruling clarifies the overlap between existing laws. The right to privacy is already there as a fundamental right within EU law. The ruling is pretty clear that data processing must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of a person, specifically including privacy. The ruling states that whilst Google had the right to process the data at the point in time in which it did so, it no longer had the right at a later point in time. The record of fact remains as a historical document, but the ruling is very narrow and says that the data processing of those facts (displaying of search results) may, at a later date, be in conflict with a persons fundamental rights. At such a point in time, the data processing isn't permitted. As with most things regarding the EU, if you sit down and read it a lot of it is fairly dull, pragmatic and reasonable.
- regoldste 12y ago

ASneakyFox 12y ago

yes but an emplyer can still find that information. it still exists. the record is either public information or not. there's no middle ground. a record being "public but must be made really difficult to find" is completely illogical. and a scene from hitchikers guide to the galaxy

buro9 12y ago
These two things are not illogical. The record can exist and it might be a breach of someone's fundamental right to privacy to make that record available via data processing. The ruling did not state that the record will not cease to exist or would not be accessible, but that data processing of the information could be a breach of the person's right to privacy. Another example: Let's say Bob actually only did commit a very minor crime. In the EU the ability to rehabilitate is protected by law. Only certain government departments have the right to access certain classes of crimes on a criminal record after n years. If you were to make a database of court judgements (nearly all of which are a public record of fact), and make available Bob's criminal record after n years had passed. You would definitely be in breach of the law. This has existed in law for a long time and isn't completely illogical. Read the ruling, it acknowledges records of fact and states that the right to process those records doesn't trump the fundamental rights. It's why they're called fundamental rights and data processing isn't on that list of fundamental rights.
- spankalee 12y ago
  What a library that keeps physical copies or microfiche of newspapers reporting the crime. Do they have to cut out the articles? If not, what about any indices - do they have to find and remove references to Bob from any physical indices? Or only ones that are computerized?
  - buro9 12y ago
    The ruling was very clear, read it. The ruling clarified "data processing" of the records, not the existence of the records. Google, as a search engine, performs data processing. That it holds the record wasn't touched by the ruling, but the press has mentioned "removed" when actually it is "don't data process" which has the effect of ensuring the record doesn't appear on a results page, but does not actually remove the record from existence.