I wonder how much they'll charge to be able to search the unredacted version of the web...
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:05:36AM +0200, Rayna wrote: > Well, the Global Network Initiative lists Google and Facebook as it lists the > Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights Watch and Index on Censorship > ;) > My guess is the guy is writing on his personal behalf. > > Following up on Rufus's questions, I have another one: whether the verdict > will > include a provision making public interest outweigh personal desire. If not, > we'll have to wait for a jurisprudence on this to perhaps use in the future... > Yet that sounds too uncertain and risky because how can you prove something > disappeared if you haven't seen it before it vanished? This is a rhetoric > question, ofc. > > Rayna > > > > 2014-05-19 19:22 GMT+02:00 martin biehl <[email protected]>: > > The Guardian article led me to ask here. Marc Stephens is independent > chair > of the Global Network Initiative which lists Google and Facebook among > participants. The fact that he doesn't mention this left me doubting the > whole article (maybe an overreaction, but it is a bit one-sided I find).� > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Duncan Edwards <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > There was an interesting piece in the Guardian yesterday by Mark > Stephens entitled � only the powerful will benefit from the � right > to be forgotten� � > http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may > /18/powerful-benefit-right-to-be-forgotten > > � > > I was particularly struck by: � Google's content removal transparency > report records how government officials around the world already seek > to remove search results and other online content that threatens their > position� . > > � > > Duncan > > � > > From: okfn-discuss [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Rufus Pollock > Sent: 19 May 2014 17:21 > To: Open Knowledge Foundation discussion list > Subject: Re: [okfn-discuss] Right to be forgotten ruling > > � > > Really glad you raised this as I'd been planning to email the list > about this. This is potentially a very big issue for open data and > open > knowledge. > > � > > I think we should be putting up a post about this and i'm interested > in > what folks here think. > > � > > For those who haven't seen there's the official press release [1] plus > lots of news articles. Key section is below and below that I have some > comments. > > � > > [1]: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/ > cp140070en.pdf and there's� > > � > > <quote> > > In 2010 Mario Costeja González, a Spanish national, lodged with the > Agencia Española de� > > Protección de Datos (Spanish Data Protection Agency, the AEPD) a > complaint against La� > > Vanguardia Ediciones SL (the publisher of a daily newspaper with a > large circulation in Spain, in� > > particular in Catalonia) and against Google Spain and Google Inc. Mr > Costeja González contended� > > that, when an internet user entered his name in the search engine of > the Google group (� Google� > > Search� ), the list of results would display links to two pages of La > Vanguardia� s newspaper, of� > > January and March 1998. Those pages in particular contained an > announcement for a real-estate� > > auction organised following attachment proceedings for the recovery of > social security debts owed� > > by Mr Costeja González.� > > � > > With that complaint, Mr Costeja González requested, first, that La > Vanguardia be required either to� > > remove or alter the pages in question (so that the personal data > relating to him no longer� > > appeared) or to use certain tools made available by search engines in > order to protect the data.� > > Second, he requested that Google Spain or Google Inc. be required to > remove or conceal the� > > personal data relating to him so that the data no longer appeared in > the search results and in the� > > links to La Vanguardia. In this context, Mr Costeja González stated > that the attachment� > > proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of > years and that reference to� > > them was now entirely irrelevant.� > > � > > The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia, taking the view > that the information in� > > question had been lawfully published by it. On the other hand, the > complaint was upheld as� > > regards Google Spain and Google Inc. The AEPD requested those two > companies to take the� > > necessary measures to withdraw the data from their index and to render > access to the data� > > impossible in the future. Google Spain and Google Inc. brought two > actions before the Audiencia� > > Nacional (National High Court, Spain), claiming that the AEPD� s > decision should be annulled. It is� > > in this context that the Spanish court referred a series of questions > to the Court of Justice.� > > � > > [The ECJ then summarizes its interpretation. Basically Google can be > treated as a data controller and ...] > > � > > ... � the� > > Court holds that the operator is, in certain circumstances, obliged to > remove links to web pages� > > that are published by third parties and contain information relating > to > a person from the list of� > > results displayed following a search made on the basis of that > person� > s name. The Court makes it� > > clear that such an obligation may also exist 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.� > > � > > Finally, in response to the question whether the directive enables the > data subject to request that� > > links to web pages be removed from such a list of results on the > grounds that he wishes the� > > information appearing on those pages relating to him personally to be > � > forgotten� after a certain� > > time, the Court holds that, if it is found, following a request by the > data subject, that the inclusion of� > > those links in the list is, at this point in time, incompatible with > the directive, the links and� > > information in the list of results must be erased. > > </quote> > > � > > This is really quite a big deal as: > > � > > a) it imposes potentially very substantial obligations on those who > collect and curate "public" (open) data > > b) it could entitle people to have "public-interest" info taken down > (e.g. what about info that you were a director of a fraudulent > company) > > � > > This issue also raises intriguing privacy vs transparency issues. > After > all, the basis of the case was data protection (cf also the debate re > the recent directive update on the "right to be forgotten" point). In > general, one is instinctively supportive of the view that someone's > personal picture on facebook should not come back to haunt them 20y > later. > > � > > However, here we are talking about "public-interest" info. > Traditionally, society has accepted that we transparency concerns > trump > privacy in a variety of public interest areas: for example, one should > be able to find who are the directors of limited liability companies, > or know the name of one's elected representatives, or know who it is > who was convicted of a given crime (in most cases). > > � > > This ruling has the potential to seriously undermine this either in > theory or in fact. > > � > > In particular, whilst a company like Google may dislike this ruling > they have the resources ultimately to comply (in fact it may be good > for them as it will increase the barriers to entry!). But for open > data > projects this creates substantial issues - for example, under this > ruling it seems possible that projects like Wikipedia, Poderopedia, > OpenCorporares or even OpenSpending will now have to deal with > requests > to remove information on the basis of infringing on personal data > protection even though the information collected only derives from > material published elsewhere and has a clear public interest > component. > > � > > Rufus > > � > > On 18 May 2014 23:15, martin biehl <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > � > > does anybody have a link to a good article on the supposed > consequences of the recent EU "right to be forgotten" ruling? What > is the open knowledge take on it? > > � > > Cheers! > > � > > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > > This message is for the addressee only and may contain privileged or > confidential information. If you have received it in error, please > notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any views or > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of IDS. Institute of Development Studies > at > the University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RE Tel: +44 (0)1273 606261; > Fax: +44 (0)1273 621202 IDS, a charitable company limited by > guarantee: > Registered Charity No. 306371; Registered in England 877338; VAT No. > GB > 350 899914 > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > > > > > > -- > "Change l'ordre du monde plutôt que tes désirs." > > http://me.hatewasabi.info/ > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
