Hi Raul and Dimi,
Thanks for raising this issue. As you know, we’re constantly monitoring
developments on the GDPR
<http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5419-2016-INIT/en/pdf> and
other laws and policies that could affect the projects. We’re concerned
about efforts to remove biographical information from the projects, as Raul
describes, or attempts to make it more difficult to find such information.
For instance, the French Data Protection Authority, the Commission
Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_nationale_de_l%27informatique_et_des_libert%C3%A9s>
has recently ordered
<https://www.cnil.fr/en/right-be-delisted-cnil-restricted-committee-imposes-eu100000-fine-google>
that Google’s Right to be Forgotten delistings be made on all domains
globally. Google had offered
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/11/google-extend-right-to-be-forgotten-googlecom>
to delist results from all domains when the person making the search was
located in the same country as the person who made the RTBF request.
However, the CNIL rejected
<https://www.cnil.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/d2016-054_penalty_google.pdf>
this suggestion, and ordered that delisting uniformly take place across all
domains.
Any action that could potentially make it harder for users around the world
to find project content causes us concern. We understand that there may be
times when someone wants changes made to the projects, but we believe that
in those cases, three factors should come into play:
-
Community Decision-making. The communities create and upload content for
the projects. They should determine what belongs on the projects, and make
decisions about what information may be irrelevant or outdated. If someone
has concerns about information on the projects, we encourage them to work
with the communities to find a solution. Simply delisting articles from
search results, or demanding that we remove information from the projects
not only threatens free expression and free access to information, but also
attempts to bypass the communities’ involvement.
-
Transparency & Due Process. Efforts to remove or affect access to
information should be done in the open, with transparency and due process
afforded all parties affected. If authors and publishers are not given a
chance to express their opinions, or appeal decisions to delist or remove
information, their voices are effectively silenced.
-
Courts, Not Companies. If any external bodies, who are not part of the
communities, are granted the authority to affect access to information on
the projects, they should be neutral courts, not tech companies. Companies
may choose to delist or remove information in order to avoid a lawsuit,
because they may not be concerned first and foremost with freedom of
expression and access to knowledge. Only courts should have the power to
make decisions of this importance.
We post the delisting notices we receive
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines#Notices_received_from_search_engines>,
so that members of our communities can be aware when access to their work
is affected. Some of the articles that have been delisted are very broad
and include a lot of information, such as this lengthy German Wikipedia
article
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrug_und_F%C3%A4lschung_in_der_Wissenschaft>
about scientific fraud from Galileo’s time to present day; or deal with
issues of public concern, such as this English Wikipedia article
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Wees_v_Karkour> about a 2007 court
case and this French Wikipedia article
<https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_ventes_d%27armes_%C3%A0_l%27Angola>
about a political scandal involving arms dealing.
Not all search engines send these notices, so the page is very likely
incomplete. If anyone becomes aware of delisted articles that are not
indicated on this page, please let us know!
As preparations are made for the GDPR to come into force in 2018, we hope
to encourage decision-makers and the yet to be established European Data
Protection Board to keep these values in mind: the importance of
community/creator input; upholding transparency and due process; and
entrusting courts, and not companies, to make decisions that affect access
to knowledge.
Best,
Jan
==
Jan Gerlach
Public Policy Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
jgerlach(a)wikimedia.org
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Raul,
I'll try to provide a thorough analysis (to be honest I have only about a
quarter read the final text), but generally speaking there's nothing to get
really worried about. I expect we'll keep having mostly the same
problems/discussions, revolving around what is public and necessary
personal information.
Talking of data protection, the thing that worries me most is the fact
that we're publishing IP addresses of unregistered editors.
Cheers,
Dimi
2016-04-15 19:03 GMT+02:00 Raul Veede <raul.veede(a)gmail.com>om>:
Sorry, I have been up to my ears in FoP, so I
haven't been able to
analyze recently passed General Data Protection Regulation closely. Is
there any estimation on the final version, to which extent might it
influence the flow of request to Wikipedia about erasing personal data?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160407IPR21776/Data-prote…
I mean, we are definitely in the business of gathering and sharing
people's personal data in biographical articles (incl. exporting it to
non-EU countries via Wikipedia), so - any new legal risks? Most comments
only mention companies but I'm sure it also concerns NCOs as collateral
damage (as usual).
I recall at least one case a couple of years ago when someone had
contacted Estonian Data Protection Agency which sent WMEE a rather
unofficial letter suggesting to comply. I pulled a half-Godwin on them
(stating and demonstrating they're incompetent, though not publicly;
probably should have, for educational value). Nothing followed. But I
suspect this directive would acquire the same influence on such cases as
full moon has in Arkham Asylum.
Raul
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
_______________________________________________
Publicpolicy mailing list
Publicpolicy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy