> > 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 about publication of previously unpublished information.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 > Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>