??? writes:
On 02/06/2014 21:14, Mike Godwin wrote:
Google has a clear purpose too, and it was no defense. Plus, there is a public-interest argument in favor of eschewing the erasure of true, accurate public data that happens to be old.
There is nothing in the judgement about erasing "true, acaccurate public data that happens to be old." The judgement is about collecting, collating, and processing it, in away that is an invasion of privacy.
This is an incorrect characterization of the opinion. The ECJ said the right "to be forgotten" applies when the data aggregated "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purpose for which they were processed and in light of the time that has elapsed." This does not mean "invasion of privacy," which is a term generally applied to information that has not previously been published. By its nature, Google is not publishing information that has never been published. -- it indexes and enables the retrieval of information that has been previously published.
Whatever "the right to be forgotten" may turn out to be, it's not about publication of previously unpublished information.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."
--Mike
Whatever "the right to be forgotten" may turn out to be, it's not about publication of previously unpublished information.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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
(note any comments here are entirely my own personal opinion)
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
The ECJ said the right "to be forgotten" applies when the data aggregated "appear to be inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purpose for which they were processed and in light of the time that has elapsed."
That begs the question as to what is "the purpose for which they were processed". Even in this case with Google and the Spanish guy and some old repossession: What's the purpose of Google's processing the data? To satisfy search requests. Is the old repossession relevant to the search for the guy's name? It depends on why someone is doing the searching, maybe it is and maybe it isn't.
And is Google having to remove all record of the repossession from their index, or just in connection with the guy's name? What if someone searches for "Mario Costeja González repossession", is the old repossession relevant then? What about "Mario Costeja González 1998", since the repossession occurred in 1998? How many years until he can whine at Google that the top results for "Mario Costeja González" are now all about this stupid lawsuit?
What if it had been some other Mario Costeja González (maybe one living outside Europe) who had the repossession? Would the ECJ ruling still require Google to remove the information based on the complaint by *this* Mario Costeja González?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org