Chris writes: > I think there's a philosophical issue about "privacy" here. As far as I can > see the ECJ interprets "privacy" as "the right to enjoy a private life", and > sees any party holding a significant amount of data about a private > individual without good reason as a potential infringement on that right, > regardless of whether that information was previously published or not.
But the ECJ opinion does not impose upon Google the obligation to erase all the information about the complainant. The underlying facts of the case (always a good idea to consult these!) relate to an order from the Spanish Data Protection Authority to remove links to a newspaper article relating to the auction of complainant's house, 16 years ago, to recover social-security debts. In general, possession of real estate, and public auctions of real-estate by the government, are both public matters. Indeed, you likely wouldn't want to live in a society in which they are not. Furthermore, the newspaper itself is expressly not obligated to censor its own databases, which adds the extra added benefit of philosophical inconsistency. --Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
