Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-04 Thread Mike Godwin
??? writes:

On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:

 Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
 a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
 accurate public data that happens to be old.


There is nothing in the judgement about erasing true, acaccurate public
data that happens to be old. The judgement is about collecting,
collating, and processing it, in away that is an invasion of privacy.

This is an incorrect characterization of the opinion. The ECJ said the
right to be forgotten applies when the data aggregated appear to be
inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation
to the purpose for which they were processed and in light of the time
that has elapsed. This does not mean invasion of privacy, which is
a term generally applied to information that has not previously been
published. By its nature, Google is not publishing information that
has never been published. -- it indexes and enables the retrieval of
information that has been previously published.

Whatever the right to be forgotten may turn out to be, it's not
about publication of previously unpublished information. Ergo, it's
not about invasion of privacy, broadly speaking. The opinion makes
clear that one can publish true, accurate, already-published
information and nevertheless be compelled to erase it by an individual
or entity invoking a right to be forgotten.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-04 Thread Chris Keating

 Whatever the right to be forgotten may turn out to be, it's not
 about publication of previously unpublished information. Ergo, it's
 not about invasion of privacy, broadly speaking. The opinion makes
 clear that one can publish true, accurate, already-published
 information and nevertheless be compelled to erase it by an individual
 or entity invoking a right to be forgotten.


I think there's a philosophical issue about privacy here. As far as I can
see the ECJ interprets privacy as the right to enjoy a private life,
and sees any party holding a significant amount of data about a private
individual without good reason as a potential infringement on that right,
regardless of whether that information was previously published or not.

There is a narrower interpretation of privacy as the right of private
individuals to control what information about them is published, which I
think is implied by your post.

From my own point of view and at the philosophical rather than practical
level, I think the ECJ's approach is better suited to what privacy means
these days.

Chris



 --Mike

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-04 Thread Mike Godwin
Chris writes:

 I think there's a philosophical issue about privacy here. As far as I can
 see the ECJ interprets privacy as the right to enjoy a private life, and
 sees any party holding a significant amount of data about a private
 individual without good reason as a potential infringement on that right,
 regardless of whether that information was previously published or not.

But the ECJ opinion does not impose upon Google the obligation to
erase all the information about the complainant. The underlying facts
of the case (always a good idea to consult these!) relate to an order
from the Spanish Data Protection Authority to remove links to a
newspaper article  relating to the auction of complainant's house, 16
years ago, to recover social-security debts.

In general, possession of real estate, and public auctions of
real-estate by the government, are both public matters. Indeed, you
likely wouldn't want to live in a society in which they are not.

Furthermore, the newspaper itself is expressly not obligated to censor
its own databases, which adds the extra added benefit of philosophical
inconsistency.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-04 Thread Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
(note any comments here are entirely my own personal opinion)

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 The ECJ said the
 right to be forgotten applies when the data aggregated appear to be
 inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation
 to the purpose for which they were processed and in light of the time
 that has elapsed.


That begs the question as to what is the purpose for which they were
processed. Even in this case with Google and the Spanish guy and some old
repossession: What's the purpose of Google's processing the data? To
satisfy search requests. Is the old repossession relevant to the search for
the guy's name? It depends on why someone is doing the searching, maybe it
is and maybe it isn't.

And is Google having to remove all record of the repossession from their
index, or just in connection with the guy's name? What if someone searches
for Mario Costeja González repossession, is the old repossession relevant
then? What about Mario Costeja González 1998, since the repossession
occurred in 1998? How many years until he can whine at Google that the top
results for Mario Costeja González are now all about this stupid lawsuit?

What if it had been some other Mario Costeja González (maybe one living
outside Europe) who had the repossession? Would the ECJ ruling still
require Google to remove the information based on the complaint by *this*
Mario Costeja González?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Mark

On 6/2/14, 10:55 PM, ??? wrote:
There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention 
at school for not doing their homework at junior high.


Isn't that the kind of information you would in fact expect to find in a 
biography of any kind of public figure? If I were reading a biography of 
Winston Churchill or Louis Armstrong or Neil Armstrong or anyone else 
prominent enough to have a book-length biography written about them, I 
would typically expect it to include a chapter about their childhood, 
and that would normally include some details of how they did at school, 
if such details are known. That's precisely the kind of information that 
biographers search for when putting together a comprehensive biography.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Mike Godwin
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree
 than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
 superinjunctions?

First, WMF operates globally, and while I took pains as general
counsel, just as the WMF legal team does now, to limit exposure around
the world, it is a mistake to suppose that jurisdictional protections
are invariably impenetrable. See my discussion here on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQOvxyj66w .

Second, the ECJ decision can be used to go after editors individually,
or organized WMF-affiliated groups.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Mike Godwin
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:

  I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
  personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when
  you
  set out to avoid acquiring it.

 On this point I must disagree.

WMF is a legal entity. The editors are legal entities. The affiliated
groups are legal entities. And there is nothing in the EU directive
that requires what you are calling a legal personality.

 I think also though that if editors are potentially liable, then so are
 legal persons that engage in similar activity. Say for instance a European
 Wikimedia chapter engaged with a national archive to update Wikidata with a
 few million records, including some on living people. Arguably both of them
 could be acting as data controllers on those records for the rest of the
 duration of Wikidata. Hm.

Now you are beginning to glimpse the scope of the ECJ opinion.

 Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
 a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
 accurate public data that happens to be old.


 This is all the case, but the decision makes it clear that this is a
 question in striking a balance between the interests of the data subject
 (the right to be forgotten, i.e. the ability to enjoy a private life), and
 the interests of others. This derives from Article 7(f) of the original
 directive.

Not exactly. The case makes it clear that it is *asserting* that it
is striking a balance, but when you read the specific language as a
lawyer, it's clear that, regardless of what the ECJ says, there is no
limiting principle regarding the scope of application.

 It also makes it clear that this balance may be struck in different places
 in different situations; for instance at Paragraph 81, talking about the
 balance of public interest in people who have taken a role in public life[1]
 who are arguably the sort we cover in our articles.

There's that makes it clear language again. Do you really suppose
Wikipedia information about individuals is limited to those who have
(presumably voluntarily) taken a role in public life?

When did this person --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dannielynn_Birkhead_paternity_case --
volunteer to take a role in public life?

 I'd agree that there is no clarity about what would happen if someone
 pursued this course of action with Wikipedia, but there are many differences
 between our case and Google's...

Not really, if you read the precise language of the decision.
Certainly, every other lawyer I've asked about this agrees with me
that Wikipedia fits the definition of controller under the directive
and the ECJ decision.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
  Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater
 degree
  than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
  superinjunctions?

 First, WMF operates globally, and while I took pains as general
 counsel, just as the WMF legal team does now, to limit exposure around
 the world, it is a mistake to suppose that jurisdictional protections
 are invariably impenetrable. See my discussion here on YouTube:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQOvxyj66w .

 Second, the ECJ decision can be used to go after editors individually,
 or organized WMF-affiliated groups.



Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over Wikimedia or specific
users (presumably only those users directly involved in creating or
curating the content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past
(e.g. with the DCRI and frwp) where governments have targeted users within
their jurisdiction to demand information or actions. Could that happen
here?

Should the WMF choose to refuse to implement the directive, could the ECJ
pursue penalties against the income stream of donations, or grant funding
disbursed to WMF-related entities in the EU? Could the WMF seek exemptions
under Article 9, or would we run into jurisdictional risks by doing that?

In Article 23, it reads The controller may be exempted from this
liability, in whole or in part, if he proves that he is not responsible for
the event giving rise to the damage. Does this, perhaps in conjunction
with the Section 230 status of the WMF, provide some cover?

CC'd to the advocacy advisory list.

~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Mike Godwin
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the ECJ need to establish jurisdiction over Wikimedia or specific users
 (presumably only those users directly involved in creating or curating the
 content in dispute)? We've seen in some situations in the past (e.g. with
 the DCRI and frwp) where governments have targeted users within their
 jurisdiction to demand information or actions. Could that happen here?

Clearly, the EU doesn't need to establish jurisdiction over EU
citizens who happen to be Wikimedians, since it already has it. The
same is true with regard to affiliated organizations in the EU.  Plus,
and this is something that bears repeating, there is no particular
reason to think that the EU might not claim it has jurisdiction over
Wikimedia Foundation, even if it might have a hard time imposing it.

Even claims of jurisdiction without merit can be problematic, as I
explain here; http://youtu.be/wqQOvxyj66w.

 Should the WMF choose to refuse to implement the directive, could the ECJ
 pursue penalties against the income stream of donations, or grant funding
 disbursed to WMF-related entities in the EU? Could the WMF seek exemptions
 under Article 9, or would we run into jurisdictional risks by doing that?

I wouldn't think any funds given to, or disbursed from, WMF in the EU
would be immune.

 In Article 23, it reads The controller may be exempted from this liability,
 in whole or in part, if he proves that he is not responsible for the event
 giving rise to the damage. Does this, perhaps in conjunction with the
 Section 230 status of the WMF, provide some cover?

Article 23's language would not be interpreted as providing
Section-230-like protection, if I read EU law correctly.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread ???

On 03/06/2014 12:53, Mark wrote:

On 6/2/14, 10:55 PM, ??? wrote:

There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention
at school for not doing their homework at junior high.


Isn't that the kind of information you would in fact expect to find in a
biography of any kind of public figure? If I were reading a biography of
Winston Churchill or Louis Armstrong or Neil Armstrong or anyone else
prominent enough to have a book-length biography written about them, I
would typically expect it to include a chapter about their childhood,
and that would normally include some details of how they did at school,
if such details are known. That's precisely the kind of information that
biographers search for when putting together a comprehensive biography.



WP is not creating books, and it is mostly NOT creating articles about 
major figures of the 20th century. It is not constructing comprehensive 
biographies. It is mostly creating short articles about people of slight 
notability from scant sources, where perhaps their school detention is 
the one of the few things extant about them.




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:23 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

 On 03/06/2014 12:53, Mark wrote:

 On 6/2/14, 10:55 PM, ??? wrote:

 There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention
 at school for not doing their homework at junior high.


 Isn't that the kind of information you would in fact expect to find in a
 biography of any kind of public figure? If I were reading a biography of
 Winston Churchill or Louis Armstrong or Neil Armstrong or anyone else
 prominent enough to have a book-length biography written about them, I
 would typically expect it to include a chapter about their childhood,
 and that would normally include some details of how they did at school,
 if such details are known. That's precisely the kind of information that
 biographers search for when putting together a comprehensive biography.


 WP is not creating books, and it is mostly NOT creating articles about
 major figures of the 20th century. It is not constructing comprehensive
 biographies. It is mostly creating short articles about people of slight
 notability from scant sources, where perhaps their school detention is the
 one of the few things extant about them.


Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is the
main feature of the article?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread ???

On 03/06/2014 22:35, Nathan wrote:


Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is the
main feature of the article?


How about this 8 yo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Emmanuel_of_Belgium#Biography

What about these other kids?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Louise_Windsor#Early_life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanta_Sof%C3%ADa_of_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hisahito_of_Akishino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Elisabeth,_Duchess_of_Brabant

...




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread Nathan
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

 On 03/06/2014 22:35, Nathan wrote:


 Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is
 the
 main feature of the article?


 How about this 8 yo?
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Emmanuel_of_Belgium#Biography

 What about these other kids?
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Louise_Windsor#Early_life
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanta_Sof%C3%ADa_of_Spain
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hisahito_of_Akishino
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Elisabeth,_Duchess_of_Brabant

 ...


Thanks! I was unable to locate any mention of school detentions in any of
the articles you linked.

I was able to determine that one is the heir to the throne of Belgium,
another the granddaughter of the Queen of England, another the daughter of
the soon-to-be King of Spain, one will likely become Emperor of Japan and
lastly Prince Emmanuel is the son of the King of Belgium and the younger
sibling of the eventual Queen.

So I do not yet see your point, which I think is that WP processes trivial
personal information about non-notable individuals in whom few people have
any interest. Perhaps you neglected to include the articles you mentioned
where school detentions are one of the few things extant about the
subjects?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-03 Thread ???

On 04/06/2014 00:06, Nathan wrote:

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 6:54 PM, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:


On 03/06/2014 22:35, Nathan wrote:



Interesting. Can you link me to a biography where a school detention is
the
main feature of the article?



How about this 8 yo?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Emmanuel_of_Belgium#Biography

What about these other kids?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Louise_Windsor#Early_life
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanta_Sof%C3%ADa_of_Spain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Hisahito_of_Akishino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Elisabeth,_Duchess_of_Brabant

...



Thanks! I was unable to locate any mention of school detentions in any of
the articles you linked.

I was able to determine that one is the heir to the throne of Belgium,
another the granddaughter of the Queen of England, another the daughter of
the soon-to-be King of Spain, one will likely become Emperor of Japan and
lastly Prince Emmanuel is the son of the King of Belgium and the younger
sibling of the eventual Queen.

So I do not yet see your point, which I think is that WP processes trivial
personal information about non-notable individuals in whom few people have
any interest. Perhaps you neglected to include the articles you mentioned
where school detentions are one of the few things extant about the
subjects?



These are pre-teen kids, the information that is being collated is 
trivia and intrusive. Fell and broke arm, taken out of main stream 
education, went to a Science Museum, able to change his own clothes, 
went to see a musical.


And if you can't see that this is equivalent to didn't do hos homework 
all one can say is Oh dear!




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-02 Thread Mike Godwin
Chris writes:

 If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a card-file index of
 newspaper cuttings (or any other kind of database) including personal
 details about a group of individuals, you are becoming both a data
 processor and data controller.

I think that's the plain meaning of the ECJ decision.

 It would be hard to argue that a Wikipedia article  or Wikidata entry does
 not represent personal data in a retrievable form.

I agree here too.

 It would be an interesting question whether the Wikimedia Foundation or
 individual Wikimedians were data processors and controllers. The court would
 have to decide who was the controller of this data, if indeed there was
 one.

My intuition is that a European court, and certainly the ECJ, would be
likely to hold either or both WMF and individual Wikimedians liable.
No need to choose between one or the other, given the breadth of the
definitions.

 I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
 personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when you
 set out to avoid acquiring it.

On this point I must disagree.

  However, even if my line of thinking is correct, I think Wikipedia's
 existing policies wouldn't need much amendment. Processing of personal data
 is allowed so long as it complies with the various duties on data
 processors, e.g. being accurate and processed for a legitimate purpose.

Accuracy is no defense! That's one of the chief lessons of the ECJ
opinion. And building an encyclopedia is not named as a legitimate
purpose by the ECJ. (If it were, all Google would have to do is
revive its own experiment in encyclopedias, Knol, but this time give
it a compatible Creative Commons license.)

 We have quite a clear purpose in processing data - the provision of an
 encyclopedia. We already limit ourselves to truthful and accurate coverage
 of data subjects (e.g. the BLP policy); and we already have something
 analogous to a public-interest test as to whether we process this data at
 all (the notability principle).

Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
accurate public data that happens to be old.

Plus, it must be said, Wikimedia Foundation is not well-positioned to
litigate these issues again and again in Europe.


--Mike



On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Chris Keating
chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris writes:

  As I understand it, the right to be forgotten will only affect the
  discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
 
  So if we rely on a source which says that person X did Y many years ago,
  and X succeeds in invoking their right to be forgotten, then the
  source
  will no longer appear in search engine results. The source, whether
  offline
  or online, will continue to exist and will continue to be a valid
  reference.
 
  My understanding may well be wrong, and if there is anything that
  summarises this issue as it affects Wikimedians I would be really
  interested to read it.

 Your understanding is essentially correct, as far as it goes. The ECJ
 (aka Curia) opinion makes clear that the decision applies to search
 engines but not (yet) to the databases of source journals (such as The
 New York Times or the Guardian).

 But of course it can affect the work of Wikipedia editors and other
 Wikimedians looking for online sources if search engine results can be
 censored in this way. In addition, it seems possible that the ECJ
 opinion can be understood to apply to Wikipedia itself, which, while
 not a search engine, may qualify as a controller as that word is
 defined under Article 2 of Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament
 (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
 personal data and on the free movement of such data).  Look at these
 relevant definitions from the text of the ECJ opinion:


 Hi Mike - thanks for the reply! Having looked and thought about it in a bit
 more depth, I am pretty sure that you're right and that a case can be made
 this precedent will apply to Wikimedians and possibly the Wikimedia
 Foundation.

 Whether that is something we need to worry about is another issue, but this
 is my reasoning (obviously I'm not a lawyer, etc, and I doubt this post
 contains anything you don't already know but it's a useful thought process
 for me);

 If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a card-file index of
 newspaper cuttings (or any other kind of database) including personal
 details about a group of individuals, you are becoming both a data
 processor and data controller.

 This judgement determines that Google's indexing of information about an
 individual is covered by the rules that apply to data processors and
 controllers. Google argued that their work was not covered, a) because they
 did not know the contents of their own data (it 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-02 Thread Todd Allen
Would WMF, being in the US, need to worry about this to any greater degree
than it worries about, say, Chinese publishing restrictions, or UK
superinjunctions?
On Jun 2, 2014 2:15 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chris writes:

  If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a card-file index of
  newspaper cuttings (or any other kind of database) including personal
  details about a group of individuals, you are becoming both a data
  processor and data controller.

 I think that's the plain meaning of the ECJ decision.

  It would be hard to argue that a Wikipedia article  or Wikidata entry
 does
  not represent personal data in a retrievable form.

 I agree here too.

  It would be an interesting question whether the Wikimedia Foundation or
  individual Wikimedians were data processors and controllers. The court
 would
  have to decide who was the controller of this data, if indeed there was
  one.

 My intuition is that a European court, and certainly the ECJ, would be
 likely to hold either or both WMF and individual Wikimedians liable.
 No need to choose between one or the other, given the breadth of the
 definitions.

  I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
  personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when you
  set out to avoid acquiring it.

 On this point I must disagree.

   However, even if my line of thinking is correct, I think Wikipedia's
  existing policies wouldn't need much amendment. Processing of personal
 data
  is allowed so long as it complies with the various duties on data
  processors, e.g. being accurate and processed for a legitimate purpose.

 Accuracy is no defense! That's one of the chief lessons of the ECJ
 opinion. And building an encyclopedia is not named as a legitimate
 purpose by the ECJ. (If it were, all Google would have to do is
 revive its own experiment in encyclopedias, Knol, but this time give
 it a compatible Creative Commons license.)

  We have quite a clear purpose in processing data - the provision of an
  encyclopedia. We already limit ourselves to truthful and accurate
 coverage
  of data subjects (e.g. the BLP policy); and we already have something
  analogous to a public-interest test as to whether we process this data at
  all (the notability principle).

 Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
 a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
 accurate public data that happens to be old.

 Plus, it must be said, Wikimedia Foundation is not well-positioned to
 litigate these issues again and again in Europe.


 --Mike



 On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Chris Keating
 chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
  On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Chris writes:
 
   As I understand it, the right to be forgotten will only affect the
   discoverability of content, rather than existence of content.
  
   So if we rely on a source which says that person X did Y many years
 ago,
   and X succeeds in invoking their right to be forgotten, then the
   source
   will no longer appear in search engine results. The source, whether
   offline
   or online, will continue to exist and will continue to be a valid
   reference.
  
   My understanding may well be wrong, and if there is anything that
   summarises this issue as it affects Wikimedians I would be really
   interested to read it.
 
  Your understanding is essentially correct, as far as it goes. The ECJ
  (aka Curia) opinion makes clear that the decision applies to search
  engines but not (yet) to the databases of source journals (such as The
  New York Times or the Guardian).
 
  But of course it can affect the work of Wikipedia editors and other
  Wikimedians looking for online sources if search engine results can be
  censored in this way. In addition, it seems possible that the ECJ
  opinion can be understood to apply to Wikipedia itself, which, while
  not a search engine, may qualify as a controller as that word is
  defined under Article 2 of Directive 95/46 of the European Parliament
  (on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
  personal data and on the free movement of such data).  Look at these
  relevant definitions from the text of the ECJ opinion:
 
 
  Hi Mike - thanks for the reply! Having looked and thought about it in a
 bit
  more depth, I am pretty sure that you're right and that a case can be
 made
  this precedent will apply to Wikimedians and possibly the Wikimedia
  Foundation.
 
  Whether that is something we need to worry about is another issue, but
 this
  is my reasoning (obviously I'm not a lawyer, etc, and I doubt this post
  contains anything you don't already know but it's a useful thought
 process
  for me);
 
  If as a private citizen in the EU you construct a card-file index of
  newspaper cuttings (or any other kind of database) including personal
  details about a group of individuals, you 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-02 Thread Chris Keating


  I don't believe Wikipedia could be a data controller as it has no legal
  personality, and legal personality is quite difficult to acquire when you
  set out to avoid acquiring it.

 On this point I must disagree.


I'd be interested to hear why :-)

I think also though that if editors are potentially liable, then so are
legal persons that engage in similar activity. Say for instance a European
Wikimedia chapter engaged with a national archive to update Wikidata with a
few million records, including some on living people. Arguably both of them
could be acting as data controllers on those records for the rest of the
duration of Wikidata. Hm.



   However, even if my line of thinking is correct, I think Wikipedia's
  existing policies wouldn't need much amendment. Processing of personal
 data
  is allowed so long as it complies with the various duties on data
  processors, e.g. being accurate and processed for a legitimate purpose.

 Accuracy is no defense! That's one of the chief lessons of the ECJ
 opinion. And building an encyclopedia is not named as a legitimate
 purpose by the ECJ. (If it were, all Google would have to do is
 revive its own experiment in encyclopedias, Knol, but this time give
 it a compatible Creative Commons license.)

  We have quite a clear purpose in processing data - the provision of an
  encyclopedia. We already limit ourselves to truthful and accurate
 coverage
  of data subjects (e.g. the BLP policy); and we already have something
  analogous to a public-interest test as to whether we process this data at
  all (the notability principle).

 Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
 a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
 accurate public data that happens to be old.


This is all the case, but the decision makes it clear that this is a
question in striking a balance between the interests of the data subject
(the right to be forgotten, i.e. the ability to enjoy a private life),
and the interests of others. This derives from Article 7(f) of the original
directive.

It also makes it clear that this balance may be struck in different places
in different situations; for instance at Paragraph 81, talking about the
balance of public interest in people who have taken a role in public
life[1] who are arguably the sort we cover in our articles.

I'd agree that there is no clarity about what would happen if someone
pursued this course of action with Wikipedia, but there are many
differences between our case and Google's...

Chris


[1]
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=docid=152065pageIndex=0doclang=ENmode=reqdir=occ=firstpart=1cid=95716
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Applying the Right to Be Forgotten to Wikipedia (Was Re: Right to be forgotten)

2014-06-02 Thread ???

On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:


Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is
a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true,
accurate public data that happens to be old.



There is nothing in the judgement about erasing true, acaccurate public 
data that happens to be old. The judgement is about collecting, 
collating, and processing it, in away that is an invasion of privacy.


There is no public interest in how many time celeb X got a detention at 
school for not doing their homework at junior high. There is no public 
interest in whether umbilical cord blood was taken from child Y or not.




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe