> > the original publication and the search engine are considered separately: > the public record of a newspaper may not be deleted even if the link to it > from a search website is removed." >
that's the bit I'm struggling with :-) On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray <[email protected]>wrote: > On 20 May 2014 07:22, Tony Bowden <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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. > > Applying hard and fast "it's public so it's public forever" rules > sound great until you start looking at the fuzzy edges ;-). > > Things like the rehabilitation laws are a very good example of this - > certainly in the UK, it boils down to "yes, it's still technically > public, and you can tell people about it, but you can't force them to > disclose it and you can't make a big fuss about it if you're motivated > by malice". Lots of nuance there without ever saying "it's secret > now". > > But, of course, it relies on an analogue age when you wouldn't know > about this without actively going out and looking for it. Privacy > through inertia and obscurity. Our concepts of privacy have been built > up around this idea of things that are "public" but only in the > proverbial dusty filing cabinet, and we're still having to get used to > the idea that things which were previously obscure are obscure no > longer, without ever having technically changed the way in which > they're "public". This is simply the most recent manifestation of it. > > On which note... > > I've just seen a set of notes on this ruling from the UK Information > Commissioner's Office, the body responsible for (inter alia) > overseeing data protection & the security of personal information, and > will be one of the people to who challenged cases get referred: > > > http://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/four-things-weve-learned-from-the-eu-google-judgment/ > > A key note to bear in mind: > > "There are some who are seeking to draw out much wider implications of > the judgment for freedom of expression in general. It is important to > keep the implications in proportion and recognise that there is no > absolute right to have links removed. Also, the original publication > and the search engine are considered separately: the public record of > a newspaper may not be deleted even if the link to it from a search > website is removed." > > -- > - Andrew Gray > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > 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
