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: ------------ Article 2 of Directive 95/46 states that ‘[f]or the purposes of this Directive: (a) “personal data” shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (“data subject”); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity; (b) “processing of personal data” (“processing”) shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data, whether or not by automatic means, such as collection, recording, organisation, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, blocking, erasure or destruction; ... (d) “controller” shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law; ... Article 9 of Directive 95/46, entitled ‘Processing of personal data and freedom of expression’, provides: ‘Member States shall provide for exemptions or derogations from the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter IV and Chapter VI for the processing of personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression only if they are necessary to reconcile the right to privacy with the rules governing freedom of expression.’ --------------- (Note that "processing of personal data" need not be done "by automatic means." I read this to mean that Wikipedia editors themselves may qualify as engaging in the "processing of personal data." And the definition of "controller" expressly includes a "natural ... person." Assuming that Member States would assert jurisdiction over Wikipedia (even though Wikipedia is hosted in the United States), could Wikipedia articles be defended under the "solely for journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression" language of Article 9 of the Directive? That language doesn't strike me as a very good fit for what Wikipedia does. The English-language version of the full text of the opinion is here: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=95716 . Ilario writes: > But I think that something will change for users writing content (no more > references in the main search engine) but also to discover copyright > infringements. And, possibly much more than that, as I suggest above. Not impossibly, and assuming EU can establish jurisdiction of Wikimedia Foundation or its agents or its volunteer editors, this particular news story might have turned out differently: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13wiki.html?_r=0 . --Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>