[Advocacy Advisors] meeting with Google on 'right to be forgotten'

Fri May 30 14:49:57 UTC 2014

On a related note, Google released it's "right to be forgotten" request
forms earlier today:
https://support.google.com/legal/contact/lr_eudpa?product=websearch&hl=en

Some more discussion about the forms here:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/googles-right-to-be-forgotten-response-is-disappointingly-clever/

It will be interesting to see how often Google will find that search
results that are requested to be removed are indeed "inadequate, irrelevant
or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which
they were processed."  Seems like Wikipedia's notability standard already
addresses this (even if the law doesn't actually apply).

Best,
Yana

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hi Luis,
>
> good to hear from you again.
>
> Could you provide us with informations about the “regular contacts with
> Google“ the WMF had on this matter?
>
> Could you also specify what is meant with “our legal position on the
> applicability of the decision“?
>
> I tried to find out what the decision could/will mean on public or civil
> search engines or similar services. So far, the answers, suggestions and
> opinions of officials, politicians and experts vary in certain ranges.
>
> Best regards
>
> Jens
> Am 30.05.2014 15:05 schrieb "Luis Villa" <lvilla at wikimedia.org>:
>
> The Foundation has been in regular contact with Google on this issue since
>> the day after the ruling. I have not been directly involved, and am not
>> clear to what extent what we know about Google's approach can be shared, so
>> I can't provide many details.
>>
>> With that in mind, a few reminders:
>> - Google is big enough now that they have some communications problems.
>> Whoever you are talking to may not realize that other parts of Google have
>> already been talking to WMF.
>> - Whoever you are talking to may not be familiar with our hosting and
>> liability structure, which may cause them to make bad assumptions about how
>> the ruling impacts us, or about who you are speaking for. Make sure to look
>> out for those assumptions and clarify then quickly.
>> - You should be careful to distinguish your opinions as Wikimedians from
>> our legal position on the applicability of the decision. For example, if
>> you think we should do more in this area, please make sure to clarify that
>> that is because you think it is the right thing, not necessarily because
>> you think WMF is legally obliged to do anything.
>>
>> With those reminders aside, I would be interested to hear this group's
>> thoughts on next steps here from a Wikimedian *cultural* perspective.
>> Ignore the legal question for the moment: should editors be handling things
>> differently than they currently do? The same?...?
>>
>> Thanks-
>> Luis
>> On May 30, 2014 4:40 AM, "Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov" <
>> dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> thanks to everyone for the interesting replies and the discussion so
>>> far. I hope it doesn't stop here. It is a topic we'll should think
>>> about and I'd be expecting at least some law suits around this.
>>>
>>> Just to make sure everyone understands, I haven't been asked to consult
>>> Google or to have Wikimedia on their advisory council or anythig like that.
>>> I've just been invited to:
>>> "discuss our approach in more detail, answer any questions or take any
>>> views you may have" (direct quote)
>>>
>>> I will make sure to report back here after the meeting.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dimi
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-05-30 13:21 GMT+02:00 Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dimi, Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> "Consulting" Google is something we shouldn't have any interests in.
>>>> Having a talk could be interesting.
>>>>
>>>> The matter of social forgetting shouldn't be something which is decided
>>>> by a council of "digital wise men & women" as Google is planning (I'm not
>>>> at all happy to see Jimmy Wales in there) nor should it be decided by a
>>>> government agency for official forgetting as the German government just
>>>> announced to do (and what reminds me of some dystopian scifi story).
>>>>
>>>> The subject of deleting information out of commercial search engines is
>>>> one problem (not basically ours), the ongoing campaign about making "the
>>>> internet" forget about information (by cutting down the search results) can
>>>> be a great problem for us.
>>>>
>>>> It is a cultural question which shouldn't be forced by any laws or
>>>> court decision.
>>>>
>>>> There was a intense case about the right to oblivion and the right to
>>>> have the information who murdered Walter Sedlmayr in Wikipedia[1][2]. Both
>>>> in the German and the English Wikipedia this was a long dispute but in
>>>> both, as of today, the names of the murders are noted and when you type in
>>>> their names in Google Search the first results are the informations about
>>>> them being convicted murderers who took their time in prison and now are
>>>> free again.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, and taking the example of a murder makes this case so
>>>> considerably, how we handle redemption and forgiveness as a society. The
>>>> variety of social interaction makes a clear decision about what to forget
>>>> and what to remember first look like a question which was in former times
>>>> answered by religion. In todays open and free societies this question is
>>>> based solely on the individual level - only very strong cultural barriers
>>>> can "overwrite" this in very few cases and even there it is often cause for
>>>> great dispute.
>>>>
>>>> Which leeds us to the only level on which the "right of oblivion" could
>>>> be considered - the level of power over the people by scoring algorithms.
>>>> We score each other on so many levels that this debate needs some reality
>>>> check. Take the example of the murderers of Walter Sedlmayr. I bet many job
>>>> applications of them went negative - officially not because they have been
>>>> murderers and some fellow workman would feel uncomfortable having a
>>>> murderer working next to him, no, surely officially there were many many
>>>> other reasons why they didn't get a job, a creditline etc.
>>>>
>>>> So, scoring means power, knowing things about somebody leads to scoring
>>>> possibilies. Intransparent scoring or scoring with highly disbalanced
>>>> conditions are unjust and the need to level the play field is immanent.
>>>> Search competence (even only knowing how to use Google cleverly) brings an
>>>> advantage in personal scoring skills, this is a cultural and social
>>>> challenge, not something you can regulate by law or with a bunch of
>>>> selected wise men & women judging over your case.
>>>>
>>>> We, as the civil movement of Free Knowledge have to find or own answers
>>>> beyond this cheap solutions which are now "negotiated" between business and
>>>> governments. Therefore we should be careful to not let us be taken in by
>>>> Google or any government.
>>>>
>>>> We should first of all develop our own thoughts on this. Where would an
>>>> appropiate place for that? On Meta? Is there already some kind of draft
>>>> paper about our thoughts as movements/European Chapters?
>>>>
>>>> best regards
>>>>
>>>> Jens Best
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr#Aufkl.C3.A4rung_der_Todesumst.C3.A4nde_und_Folgen
>>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Sedlmayr#Murder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-05-30 11:10 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
>>>> dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was contacted by Google's Brussels policy office team today and they
>>>>> want to meet with me and talk about the recent ruling by the Court of
>>>>> Justice of the European Union
>>>>> <http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=152065&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=276332>
>>>>> that allows users to request information about them be taken off by search
>>>>> engines.
>>>>>
>>>>> They want to discuss their approach in this matter in more detail and
>>>>> answer any questions we might have.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dooes anyone on this list have a particular question they'd like me to
>>>>> ask them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Dimi
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> Jens Best
>>>> Präsidium
>>>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
>>>> web: http://www.wikimedia.de
>>>> mail: jens.best <http://goog_17221883>@wikimedia.de
>>>>
>>>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>>>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
>>>> Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
>>>> anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
>>>> Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>

-- 
Yana Welinder
Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
@yanatweets <https://twitter.com/yanatweets>

NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/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>.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140530/fdd716d9/attachment-0001.html>