yes Tony I certainly agree with your points re archiving/removal of content - no change there is suggested. If they put it in the public sphere (as per their governance framework) it should stay in the public sphere. But the case:
The AEPD rejected the complaint against La Vanguardia [newspaper article on > the case], 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. > if the newspaper article is allowed to stay public then why can't the search engine result that points to it? Anyone republishing information — even just in a passing reference to it — > is already open to lots of legal challenges in most jurisdictions anyway > (e.g. libel). > yes, this is what I take issue with. But it's usually the newspaper not the search engine? A. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Tony Bowden <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 May 2014 02:06, Anna Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > > My position is that a fact is a fact and should remain so. > > Most facts don't fall into the "universally true for all time" > category. This isn't just pedantry — a lot of the discussion in this > area comes down to this sort of framing. We naturally treat some facts > as having an obvious time component, but generally aren't as good at > doing so with classes of information with a longer half life. > > > If it's been released into the public sphere it should stay there. > > Many countries already have laws that recognise a value in allowing > information to decay — e.g. expunged records or spent convictions > under Rehabilitation of Offenders laws. There are certainly > interesting technical challenges to achieving things like this in > practice, but that doesn't mean that the underlying goal isn't a > worthwhile one. > > > Secondly, putting the > > liability onto intermediaries rather than content owner (person/entity > who > > made the decision to make the data public) is a dangerous precedent > > Anyone republishing information — even just in a passing reference to > it — is already open to lots of legal challenges in most jurisdictions > anyway (e.g. libel). I don't believe anyone is claiming that the > intermediaries must proactively decide what they can and can't publish > — simply that (as with lots of other areas), once their attention is > drawn to problematic material, they have to remove it. > > Tony > _______________________________________________ > okfn-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss > -- Kind regards, Anna Daniel, PhD. Information Policy Griffith University t.: 0439 061 834 | [email protected] I ascribe to the email charter: http://emailcharter.org Disclaimer*:* this information is provided for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice.
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
