??? 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about publication of previously unpublished information.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>

Reply via email to