Dangerous Ruling: EU Says Google Must Help People Disappear Stuff They Don't ...

[Mike]

For years now we've explained why Europe's concept of a "right to be forgotten" is a terrible, dangerous and impossible idea. The basic idea is that if you were involved in something that you're not happy about later, you can demand that the incident be stricken from the record... everywhere. It's a clear attack on free speech -- allowing people to censor others from saying truthful and accurate things about someone.

However, Europe continued to push forward with it, even after a report noted that such a rule was technically impossible. Of course, once it was put into an EU directive, someone sued Google, in an effort to have an embarrassing moment from their past deleted. Mario Costeja Gonzalez sued Google, claiming that a search on his name turned up information on him being forced to sell some land in the 90s to cover some debts, and that since the matter was settled, he wanted it deleted.

We were encouraged, last summer, to see EU Court of Justice Advocate General Niilo Jaaskinen tell the court that there is no such right under the European data and privacy directive, and that Google shouldn't be responsible for what it finds. Quite frequently, the EU Court of Justice listens to its Advocate General. Today, however, it chose not to, and issued an all around horrible ruling, in which it claims that Google is in fact responsible for making stuff disappear from the internet, even if that information is accurate. From the ruling:

Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to comply with the rights laid down in those provisions and in so far as the conditions laid down by those provisions are in fact satisfied, the operator of a search engine is obliged to remove from the list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of a person’s name links to web pages, published by third parties and containing information relating to that person, also in a case where that name or information is not erased beforehand or simultaneously from those web pages, and even, as the case may be, when its publication in itself on those pages is lawful.

Article 12(b) and subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 14 of Directive 95/46 are to be interpreted as meaning that, when appraising the conditions for the application of those provisions, it should inter alia be examined whether the data subject has a right that the information in question relating to him personally should, at this point in time, no longer be linked to his name by a list of results displayed following a search made on the basis of his name, without it being necessary in order to find such a right that the inclusion of the information in question in that list causes prejudice to the data subject. As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name.

Got that? Not only must search engines take down any links to such information posted by third parties, the interest of the person who is embarrassed by past actions has his or her rights override the "interest of the general public" in having access to that information.

While some European officials, such as Viviane Reding, claim this is a "victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans", that's not true. This is nothing more than a censorship law which will be wildly abused. As The Guardian's James Ball explains, this creates an impossible quagmire for basically any internet company:

This creates a real quagmire for any company offering up information online: after how long does a bankruptcy ruling become something that should be private? Is that different if the subject is a celebrity or a politician? What if they offered the information voluntarily (or sold their story) in the first place? How about drug use, or prostitution, or murder? What if a person stands for public office a few years after having their search records scrubbed?

If nothing else, deciding such issues on a case-by-case basis will require huge teams of compliance staff in every tech company (and probably most media companies), and will tie up courts on the limits of each provision for years to come.

He further notes how this ruling will have dreadful consequences for both free speech and the tech industry in Europe.

The result is either an eerie parallel with China's domestic censorship of search results, or a huge incentive for tech investment to get the hell out of Europe. Neither, presumably, is a remotely desirable result.

Either way, while we respect the Europeans' interest in protecting privacy, there are ways to protect privacy that do not come with a full out attack on free speech. You don't protect privacy by creating a broad censorship rule, but that's what the EU has done today.

source

[ViperScale]

I think i could have some fun with this and just start randomly requesting all kinds of stuff to be removed. Do you have to prove you are the person the info is about or will they have to just remove it?

[Scrumptious]

Politician and paedophile ask Google to 'be forgotten'


The right-to-be-forgotten ruling set a precedent for the removal of search results in Europe

Google has received fresh takedown requests after a European court ruled that an individual could force it to remove "irrelevant and outdated" search results, the BBC has learned.

An ex-politician seeking re-election has asked to have links to an article about his behaviour in office removed.

A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has requested links to pages about his conviction to be wiped.

And a doctor wants negative reviews from patients removed from the results.

Google itself has not commented on the so-called right-to-be-forgotten ruling since it described the European Court of Justice judgement as being "disappointing".

Nor has it released any figures about the number of takedown requests received since Tuesday.

The original case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results had infringed his privacy.

The ruling surprised many because it contradicted the advice of the European Union's advocate general who said last year that search engines were not obliged to honour such requests.

EU Commissioner Viviane Reding described the decision as "a clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans" but others are concerned about the consequences that it will have for free speech.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has criticised the ruling, calling it "astonishing" while free speech advocates at The Index on Censorship said the court's ruling "should send chills down the spine of everyone in the European Union who believes in the crucial importance of free expression and freedom of information".

"The court has said that an individual's desires outweigh society's interest in the complete facts around incidents," it added.

Marc Dautlich, a lawyer at Pinsent Masons, said that search engines might find the new rules hard to implement.

"If they get an appreciable volume of requests what are they going to do? Set up an entire industry sifting through the paperwork?" he asked.

"I can't say what they will do but if I was them I would say no and tell the individual to contact the Information Commissioner's Office."

Although the judgement refers specifically to search engines and states that only the links to information, rather than the information itself, be removed from the net, some news organisations have seen a rise in the number of people asking to have articles removed since the ruling.

source

[System Folder]

If a person's house is repossessed, I think the new owner has every right to sell the house online and no one, not even Google, should get in the way of that.

[ViperScale]

Facebook needs to be removed from google because it has links to pictures of people many i am sure the person didn't post themself. They need to remove all link to youtube because if you follow any link to youtube you can find videos of people on youtube.

We need to get rid of search engines in general because the links can always loop around to info someone does not want.


It is ok though i have been working on a virus that will corrupt 10+ years of DHHS backups and shutdown the internet as we know it.

[pewple]

OMGOSH, I wish I can erase my dark, traumatic, haunting past too from ever happening in real life!!!!

But seriously, how do people become better if not by learning from history?

Even science derives from observations, which are history.

[Scrumptious]

UK reacts to Google 'right to be forgotten' ruling


Google has said that it needs time to review how it will deal with the EU court's ruling

The UK's data privacy watchdog has said that it would focus on "evidence of damage and distress to individuals" when reviewing complaints about Google and others' search results.

The Information Commissioner's Office's blog post is its first official response to last week's "right to be forgotten" EU ruling.

The ICO will be responsible for resolving complaints in cases where a search firm refuses to remove links.

It noted such action was months away.

"This judgment was only made last week, and the companies will need some time to work out how they're going to handle this," wrote David Smith, the body's director of data protection.

"We won't be ruling on any complaints until the search providers have had a reasonable time to put their systems in place and start considering requests."

Ruling backlash

The Court of Justice of the European Union set a legal precedent on 13 May when it ruled that a user had the right to have links to web pages about him removed from Google's results because the passage of time had made them "irrelevant".

The Spanish man had complained that Google's links to an auction notice of his repossessed home infringed his privacy.

The takedown demand only applied to search results and not the web page containing the notice itself.

But the court added that others had a similar right to have search results deleted "unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life" that would justify keeping the links online.

The court noted that if search engines refused to comply, it would be up to local authorities - such as the ICO - to force their hand.

Google said the ruling was "disappointing" and that it needed time to "analyse the implications".

But Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, has attacked the judgement, calling it "wide-sweeping internet censorship", adding that it would be difficult for search firms to determine what should be removed.

Forget-me guidelines

The ICO acknowledged the "right to be forgotten" would be difficult to implement.

"It is important to keep the implications in proportion and recognise that there is no absolute right to have links removed," wrote Mr Smith.

"Our concern remains how this can be achieved in practice and how to set reasonable expectations for the public about how such a right can operate."

He added that the ICO and other data protection authorities would need to issue guidance, and said that the organisation planned to discuss the matter with its European counterparts at the start of next month.

source

[Mike]

Apparently, European citizens prefer a sanitized web -- one that won't clutter up their vanity searches with embarrassing results. Julia Fioretti's report for Reuters on the new "forget me now" web form Google recently deployed contains this impressive fact.

After putting up the online form in the early hours of Friday, Google received 12,000 requests across Europe, sometimes averaging 20 per minute, by late in the day, the company said.

Now, Google will have to sift through these entries to determine which requests exceed the bar set by the EU's data protection law. Despite being very adamant that European citizens have the right to be "forgotten," there's been very little determined in terms of the bright line between citizens' privacy and the public's right to know. Data protection authorities are supposed to meet next week to attempt to reach some sort of consensus. Meanwhile, the requests continue to pour in.

The web form is very straightforward, asking for country of origin, as well as a brief statement as to why the complainant feels each listed link should be removed. Those making requests are required to upload a copy of documents proving their identity, a safeguard against abuse and one that might generate second thoughts in a few requesters (especially if the request fails to meet the eventual applicable standards).

Americans who want certain things to be de-listed are still out of luck… for now. As Eric Goldman points out, US courts are still very hesitant to hold Google accountable for the content it indexes and aren't in a big hurry to carve holes in Section 230 protections. This holds true even if it's an algorithm that's somehow managed to cobble together something unflattering from a massive pile of indexed text.

Today’s case gives us a good example of the growing divergence between US and EU search results. O’Kroley did a vanity search and got the following search results snippet:

Texas Advance Sheet March 2012–Google Books Result books.google.com/books? id=kO1rxn9COwsC …

Fastcase—2012

… indecency with a child in Trial Court Cause N … Colin O’Kroley v. Pringle. (Tex.App., 2012). MEMORANDUM OPINION On February 9, 2012, Colin O’Kroley filed in.

The plaintiff argued that the text snippet was clearly defamatory, even if the document in full wasn't. The court didn't buy it.

the undersigned Magistrate Judge has found no case that makes the precise claim that O’Kroley makes here—that the underlying information, viewed in its entirety, is not defamatory, but that it has been rendered defamatory by Google’s automated editing process that juxtaposed two sentence fragments in the snippet. Nevertheless, based upon the “robust” immunity afforded under Section 230, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that the editorial acts of Google creating the offensive search result are subject to statutory immunity. For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Google is immune from all claims in the complaint, and that Google’s motion to dismiss must be granted.

If you're looking to cleanse the web stateside, you don't really have many options beyond the court system, and there's no success guaranteed there, even if you have a more solid claim than O'Kroley's. But I'm not sure if there's any reason to be clamoring for a "right to be forgotten." Google's new service doesn't actually make content disappear. It simply removes it from its index. Other search engines will still be able to locate it, at least for the time being.

Beyond that, you have to consider the implications of putting the "keep/remove" decision in the hands of politicians and tech giants. Both can be incredibly self-serving. Neither truly has the best interests of the public in mind. The EU may be able to dictate Google's delistings, but at this point, it's not operating on anything more concrete than a gut feeling that there's something wrong with good people being linked to bad stuff. But it's an unrealistic goal. Good people will still be wrongly linked with bad stuff, and bad people will still get away with hiding evidence of their wrongdoing.

A lot of bad precedent has led to this decision -- like superinjunctions and defamation laws so easily abused, certain countries have become temporary "homes" for libel tourists. This push for specifically Google to operate a deliberately faulty search engine has been in the works for years, starting with cries about Google "enabling" piracy (and child pornography, etc.) by returning the search results it was asked to fetch, and culminating in this exercise in symbolic gestures: Google whitewashing search results while the troubling content remains undisturbed.

source

[Mike]

The aspect of the whole "right to be forgotten" business that's been occurring in Europe that most interests me isn't the legal wranglings or the plethora of unforeseen consequences that will inevitably rear its ugly head. Rather, I'm chiefly interested in the mentality that wanting such legislation suggests. That mentality appears to essentially amount to a request that chosen-actions that might end up being embarrassing should be subject to the whims of he or she that might be embarrassed. While this strikes me as immensely silly, it's not difficult to understand that the unprecedentedly long memory of the internet, as well as its inherent function as an easily-searched index, has made the consequences for embarrassing actions occur on a longer timeline than ever before. Pushing back against that change in the action-response scenario was probably inevitable, even if it's still wrong.

But it isn't just the internet that creates these kinds of scenarios. Digital photography presents a similar problem, with embarrassing images easily stored in perpetuity on hard drives and free from the wear and tear that old developed photos had to endure. And that's how we end up with a German court ruling that ex-lovers who had consented to being photographed nude and/or engaged in sexual activity must be deleted once the relationship ends.

The man, an unnamed photographer, had taken explicit photographs of his partner and made erotic videos with her throughout their relationship. The court heard the woman had consented to all of the material being taken and, in some cases, had taken the photographs herself. When their relationship ended, the woman insisted that all of the images and videos she appeared in be deleted.

The court agreed that any privately recorded nude pictures and footage which she appeared in should be deleted or withdrawn on the grounds of personal rights, which are considered higher than the ownership rights of the photographer, the Local has reported.

Let's wade around the legal weeds of German rights for a moment and break this down in laymen's terms. The court has ruled that actions previously agreed to are subject to the wants of that actor once a romantic relationship ends simply because they might embarrass said actor. One might have sympathy with the woman in this specific case, who didn't want her ex-lover to retain nude photos or videos of her in suggestive situations with him. But negating the responsibility for decisions made is going to open up a whole can of worms the court has no business involving itself in. In this case, they ruled that photos of the woman fully-clothed weren't subject to deletion, because they wouldn't "compromise" her. Great, except now define "fully-clothed", explain why the woman's feelings that her in a low-cut t-shirt isn't fully clothed, what ability the court has demonstrated to be a good arbiter of other people's feelings of being compromised, etc.

The point is that when the courts get involved in attempting to protect people from their own feelings, it's going to go wrong. Each and every time. Because the court shouldn't be in this kind of subjective debate. On top of that, alleviating citizens from the consequences of actions they consented to isn't the court's business either. Yes, it's possible that the man may use the photos in questionable ways, but let the court deal with those offenses rather than the vague possibility of an offense. This court instead said the ex had to delete the photos that are his to possess, simply because. Have fun with the resulting caseload, Germany.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story










Originally Published: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:11:59 GMT
source

[ViperScale]

Does this also mean we can request European courts to forget any crime i have committed? So say i was to rape someone over there.... can i request that they forget that i raped someone and not ever be able to tell people this?