??? 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 Whatever "the right to be forgotten" may turn out to be, it's not about publication of previously unpublished information.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 Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>