The Guardian article led me to ask here. Marc Stephens is independent chair of the Global Network Initiative <https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/>which lists Google and Facebook among participants. The fact that he doesn't mention this left me doubting the whole article (maybe an overreaction, but it is a bit one-sided I find).
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Duncan Edwards <[email protected]> wrote: > There was an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday by Mark > Stephens entitled “only the powerful will benefit from the ‘right to be > forgotten’” > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/18/powerful-benefit-right-to-be-forgotten > > > > I was particularly struck by: “*Google's content removal transparency > report records how government officials around the world already seek to > remove search results and other online content that threatens their > position*”. > > > > Duncan > > > > *From:* okfn-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Rufus Pollock > *Sent:* 19 May 2014 17:21 > *To:* Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list > *Subject:* Re: [okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling > > > > Really glad you raised this as I'd been planning to email the list about > this. This is potentially a very big issue for open data and open knowledge. > > > > I think we should be putting up a post about this and i'm interested in > what folks here think. > > > > For those who haven't seen there's the official press release [1] plus > lots of news articles. Key section is below and below that I have some > comments. > > > > [1]: > http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdfand > there's > > > > <quote> > > In 2010 Mario Costeja González, a Spanish national, lodged with the > Agencia Española de > > Protección de Datos (Spanish Data Protection Agency, the AEPD) a complaint > against La > > Vanguardia Ediciones SL (the publisher of a daily newspaper with a large > circulation in Spain, in > > particular in Catalonia) and against Google Spain and Google Inc. *Mr > Costeja González contended * > > *that, when an internet user entered his name in the search engine of the > Google group (‘Google * > > *Search’), the list of results would display links to two pages of La > Vanguardia’s newspaper, of * > > *January and March 1998. Those pages in particular contained an > announcement for a real-estate * > > *auction organised following attachment proceedings for the recovery of > social security debts owed * > > *by Mr Costeja González*. > > > > With that complaint, Mr Costeja González requested, first, that La > Vanguardia be required either to > > remove or alter the pages in question (so that the personal data relating > to him no longer > > appeared) or to use certain tools made available by search engines in > order to protect the data. > > *Second, he requested that Google Spain or Google Inc. be required to > remove or conceal the * > > *personal data relating to him so that the data no longer appeared in the > search results and in the * > > *links to La Vanguardia*. In this context, Mr Costeja González stated > that the attachment > > proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years > and that reference to > > them was now entirely irrelevant. > > > > The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, taking the view > that the information in > > question had been lawfully published by it. On the other hand, the > complaint was upheld as > > regards Google Spain and Google Inc. The AEPD requested those two > companies to take the > > necessary measures to withdraw the data from their index and to render > access to the data > > impossible in the future. Google Spain and Google Inc. brought two actions > before the Audiencia > > Nacional (National High Court, Spain), claiming that the AEPD’s decision > should be annulled. It is > > in this context that the Spanish court referred a series of questions to > the Court of Justice. > > > > [The ECJ then summarizes its interpretation. Basically Google can be > treated as a data controller and ...] > > > > ... the > > Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to > remove links to web pages > > that are published by third parties and contain information relating to a > person from the list of > > results displayed following a search made on the basis of that person’s > name. The Court makes it > > clear that *such an obligation may also exist in a case where that name > or information is not erased * > > *beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case > may be, when its * > > *publication in itself on those pages is lawful.* > > > > Finally, in response to the question whether the directive enables the > data subject to request that > > links to web pages be removed from such a list of results on the grounds > that he wishes the > > information appearing on those pages relating to him personally to be > ‘forgotten’ after a certain > > time, the Court holds that, if it is found, following a request by the > data subject, that the inclusion of > > those links in the list is, at this point in time, incompatible with the > directive, the links and > > information in the list of results must be erased. > > </quote> > > > > This is really quite a big deal as: > > > > a) it imposes potentially very substantial obligations on those who > collect and curate "public" (open) data > > b) it could entitle people to have "public-interest" info taken down (e.g. > what about info that you were a director of a fraudulent company) > > > > This issue also raises intriguing privacy vs transparency issues. After > all, the basis of the case was data protection (cf also the debate re the > recent directive update on the "right to be forgotten" point). In general, > one is instinctively supportive of the view that someone's personal picture > on facebook should not come back to haunt them 20y later. > > > > However, here we are talking about "public-interest" info. Traditionally, > society has accepted that we transparency concerns trump privacy in a > variety of public interest areas: for example, one should be able to find > who are the directors of limited liability companies, or know the name of > one's elected representatives, or know who it is who was convicted of a > given crime (in most cases). > > > > This ruling has the potential to seriously undermine this either in theory > or in fact. > > > > In particular, whilst a company like Google may dislike this ruling they > have the resources ultimately to comply (in fact it may be good for them as > it will increase the barriers to entry!). But for open data projects this > creates substantial issues - for example, under this ruling it seems > possible that projects like Wikipedia, Poderopedia, OpenCorporares or even > OpenSpending will now have to deal with requests to remove information on > the basis of infringing on personal data protection even though the > information collected only derives from material published elsewhere and > has a clear public interest component. > > > > Rufus > > > > On 18 May 2014 23:15, martin biehl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > does anybody have a link to a good article on the supposed consequences of > the recent EU "right to be forgotten" ruling? What is the open knowledge > take on it? > > > > Cheers! > > > > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > > This message is for the addressee only and may contain privileged or > confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify > the sender immediately and delete the original. Any views or opinions > expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent > those of IDS. Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, > Brighton BN1 9RE Tel: +44 (0)1273 606261; Fax: +44 (0)1273 621202 IDS, a > charitable company limited by guarantee: Registered Charity No. 306371; > Registered in England 877338; VAT No. GB 350 899914 > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
