Hi Puneet, I actually think Google is handling the case quite well to their profit so far.
The irony to me is that thanks to a not very well though ruling from the ECJ, Google is now setting up a consultative decision-making process that could end with a legal framework on its own, coordinated by a private global entity, that substitutes to national regulators and rules on what is public information and what is not. Where are the Data Protection and Right to Info authorities here ? Will they have the capacity to handle and control all decisions made by Google on a case by case basis ? I find the question raised by Google of high importance and I am keen to think and discuss about it but I would have really really preferred that question being raised by my National or European Parliament and being discussed through a democratic process. Instead of that, we are now in a strange situation where we are offered to go into a consultative process and provide our knowledge and reflection on a matter of public interest to an entity we do not have control over but who is asked, obliged, to regulate that public matter. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:58 AM, stef <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 09:39:14AM +0200, Pierre Chrzanowski wrote: > > So now, as expected, we have a private entity, kindly seeking public > advice > > from an Advisory Council, to regulate on a case by case basis on what is > > public information and what is not. I would say there is some irony in > > there. > > i think google did everything to maneuver itself into this gatekeeper > position. > > 2004, don't be evil > 2014, we changed policy > > -- > otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt > -- *Pierre Chrzanowski* *Expert Open Data* Mail : [email protected] Skype : pierre.chrzanowski | Twitter : @pzwsk
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/okfn-discuss
