4 ms·
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, perfor
by 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.
- spankalee 12y agoRight, but as content is computerized, just about anything is data processing. Wikipedia says that the definition of processing according to the directive is: "any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organization, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction;" Indexing is obvious. A library's internal index system does data processing. If it indexes it's own collection, it would appear to be subject to this ruling, so that a person could demand that they are removed from the library's index systems, while still remaining in the archive. What about machine translation? That seems like retrieval and adaption. Do all generic translators have to have provisions for privacy? Browsers do retrieval to render pages. Do browsers need a list of verboten web pages that they refuse to render?
- ZenPro 12y agoThe law expects people to apply reason and judgement, not seek technical obfuscation.