Whatever "the right to be forgotten" may turn out to be, it's not
about publication of previously unpublished information. Ergo, it's
not about "invasion of privacy," broadly speaking. The opinion makes
clear that one can publish true, accurate, already-published
information and nevertheless be compelled to erase it by an individual
or entity invoking a right "to be forgotten."
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.
There is a narrower interpretation of "privacy" as "the right of private
individuals to control what information about them is published", which I
think is implied by your post.
From my own point of view and at the philosophical
rather than practical
level, I think the ECJ's approach is better suited to what
"privacy" means
these days.
Chris
--Mike
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>