I see I am not the only one who noticed what WMF Legal is doing, but I see it a different
way than Nathan. I see it as the WMF intimidating and threatening those EU individuals who
dare to to exercise their rights under the court's ruling. Brigham and Paulson are
basically saying "just try it. We will Streisand you."
Trillium Corsage
06.08.2014, 16:11, "Nathan" <email clipped>:
Thanks very much for this, Stephen and the legal team.
I especially
appreciate that the WMF has decided to make public the specific
notifications of the use of the "Right to be forgotten" in the EU.[1] It's
interesting that the bulk of the suppression requests have come from a
single (ex?) Wikimedian targeting internal process pages of his home wiki.
Not shockingly, the RtF request is now in the top 5 results on a Google
search of that persons name.
The NY Times covered the transparency report:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/wikipedia-details-government-data-…
[1]:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Notices_received_from_search_engines
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Stephen LaPorte <email clipped>
wrote:
Hi All,
The “right to be forgotten” has been the subject of much discussion and
debate (including on this list),[1] particularly following the May European
Court of Justice judgment ordering Google to delist some links related to a
Spanish citizen.[2] Since then, search engines have been receiving requests
to remove hundreds of thousands of URLs from search results. Google
recently released more information about its right to be forgotten
requests.[3]
The WMF legal team has been watching the “right to be forgotten” issue
closely and considering what legal strategies we should take going forward.
Today, the WMF published its first transparency report[4]—you can read more
in this blog post.[5] WMF held a press briefing announcing our strategy of
advocacy and transparency on link censorship. We will oppose what we see as
a misguided court decision that has resulted in a crude implementation of
the “right to be forgotten.” Lila has also issued a statement,[6] and,
Geoff, WMF’s general counsel, and Michelle Paulson, WMF's legal counsel,
have published a blog on the subject.[7] As the topic is of interest to
this group, we wanted to keep you informed of these recent legal
developments.
Thanks,
Stephen
[1]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000547.html,
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-June/000539.html
[2]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62012CJ0131
[3]
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/file/d/0B8syaai6SSfiT0EwRUFyOENqR3M…
[4]
http://transparency.wikimedia.org/
[5]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikimedia-foundation-releases-first-t…
[6]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/european-court-decision-punches-holes…
[7]
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/06/wikipedia-pages-censored-in-european-…
--
Stephen LaPorte
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
*NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal and
ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for,
community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity.
For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*
_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
_______________________________________________
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>