Support NeoGAF

[Funky Papa]

Huge motherfucking news in Europe.

The European Union Court of Justice said links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.

The case was brought by a Spanish man who complained that an auction notice of his repossessed home on Google's search results infringed his privacy.

Google said the ruling was "disappointing".

"We now need to take time to analyse the implications," a spokesperson added.
'Inadequate'

The search engine says it does not control data, it only offers links to information freely available on the internet.

It has previously said forcing it to remove data amounts to censorship.

The EU Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, welcomed the court's decision in a post on Facebook, saying it was a "clear victory for the protection of personal data of Europeans".

"The ruling confirms the need to bring today's data protection rules from the "digital stone age" into today's modern computing world," she said.

The European Commission proposed a law giving users the "right to be forgotten" in 2012.

It would require search engines to edit some searches to make them compliant with the European directive on the protection of personal data.

I can see how this pisses off Google to no end, but the EUCJ's reasoning is sound.

Edit: Ruling

An internet search engine operator is responsible for the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on web pages published by third parties
Thus, if, following a search made on the basis of a person’s name, the list of results displays a link to a web p age which contains information on the person in question, that data subject may approach the operator directly and, where the operator does not grant his request, bring the matter before the competent authorities in order to obtain, under certain conditions, the removal of that link from the list of results

 

[Des0lar]

On one hand, I agree that it sucks that some stuff leaves a permanent mark on your history in the age of the Internet, on the other hand I fear that this can be abused to remove stuff that should never be forgotten or erased.

 

[Funky Papa]

On one hand, I agree that it sucks that some stuff leaves a permanent mark on your history in the age of the Internet, on the other hand I fear that this can be abused to remove stuff that should never be forgotten or erased.

It's not that easy, though. Any person can ask Google to remove their personal information from the search results, but Google may or may not comply. Then it's up to the courts and regulators.

 

[Oersted]

Wonderful news.

On one hand, I agree that it sucks that some stuff leaves a permanent mark on your history in the age of the Internet, on the other hand I fear that this can be abused to remove stuff that should never be forgotten or erased.

Like???

 

[Zomba13]

On one hand, I agree that it sucks that some stuff leaves a permanent mark on your history in the age of the Internet, on the other hand I fear that this can be abused to remove stuff that should never be forgotten or erased.

I think in those cases the internet is gonna internet but for other things, like the example quoted in the OP, don't need to be there on the internet forever for the world to see.

 

[mclem]

It's not that easy, though. Any person can ask Google to remove their personal information from the search results, but Google may or may not comply. Then it's up to the courts and regulators.

And if it's something big, Streisand.

Just to clarify: Had the auction notice been removed by that point, and it was only the search result that remained intact? I wonder if it's on the Wayback Machine, too...

 

[ComputerMKII]

Yet another false right (like net neutrality) and, like all false rights, it's easy to see what it can bring us but practically impossible to foresee the problems it can cause in 5, 10, 15 years after it's applied.

I trash.

 

[Walshicus]

As ever the EU stands up for the little guy. Not surprising that Westminster is looking for an opt-out.

 

[Wiktor]

Yet another false right (like net neutrality) and, like all false rights, it's easy to see what it can bring us but practically impossible to foresee the problems it can cause in 5, 10, 15 years after it's applied.

I trash.

Well..the current situation already causes problems. If this law will start to cause new ones in 5, 10 or 15 years then the law will just be changed.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm confused about why people seem so comfortable about "courts and regulators" deciding what shows up on Google.

Well..the current situation already causes problems. If this law will start to cause new ones in 5, 10 or 15 years then the law will just be changed 5, 10, 15.

I wish I had your faith in the willingness of a body to voluntarily relinquish power.

 

[liquidtmd]

Specifically I see the guy whose bringing this ups point.

If Google aren't listening to him, by all mean he should pursue this as he is.

 

[Kabouter]

I'm confused about why people seem so comfortable about "courts and regulators" deciding what shows up on Google.

Because it's the only means available to individuals to protect their rights from being infringed by large multinational corporations. Without courts or regulators, what would you have people do if their rights are violated by Google?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Because it's the only means available to individuals to protect their rights from being infringed by large multinational corporations. Without courts or regulators, what would you have people do if their rights are violated by Google?

Go to courts, but that's for when they break laws. Is this?

 

[Nero3000]

I'm confused about why people seem so comfortable about "courts and regulators" deciding what shows up on Google.

It's not about the courts and regulators deciding what shows up, but the courts and regulator providing authority for individuals to decide whether their data is allowed to show up.

It is about empowering the individual to take action on data about them, and not giving google a carte blanche.

 

[Kabouter]

Go to courts, but that's for when they break laws. Is this?

Yes, the courts are to interpret laws and other legal acts including EU directives. They judged this violated an EU directive. Specifically this one:
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31)

 

[Wiktor]

I'm confused about why people seem so comfortable about "courts and regulators" deciding what shows up on Google.

Because the net shouldn't be a place without any rules and laws just because it's relatively new medium.

I
I wish I had your faith in the willingness of a body to voluntarily relinquish power.

What power? This is about giving power to users. And I have pretty decent faith in EU to stick with their citizens. This isn't USA where the goverment will always fuck you over if some corporation can make money on it.

 

[Funky Papa]

I'm confused about why people seem so comfortable about "courts and regulators" deciding what shows up on Google.

Considering the EU's track record when it comes to consumer rights/privacy and that of Google's, I feel a heck of a lot more comfortable.

For starters, you can't ask Google to remove anything, just some personal information that falls within the reach of privacy laws and directives such as the ones related to the methods and guildelines used to process personal data.

This is actually a terrific ruling with huge positives for European citizens and tiny drawbacks.

 

[Walshicus]

I'm confused about why people seem so comfortable about "courts and regulators" deciding what shows up on Google.

They already have that power. This is just providing a mechanism for individuals to remove personal information that cannot justifiably be indexed.

 

[Tacitus_]

Good to know we can get stuff out of our records. This will be especially relevant once the current kids grow up and look back at what sort of idiots they were on the internet.

 

[StayDead]

The EU may not always be perfect, but things like this and the fact they've been helping European consumers of digital products recently makes me seriously doubt my own (UK) governments reasons for wanting to get out of the EU.

 

[SecretMoblin]

This raises a number of questions, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the reasoning. Where was this information that a Google search led to stored? How easy would it be to have found the information about this auction notice without a search engine? Aren't foreclosures and repossessed property public information and therefore subject to laws related to the release and availability of such information? Who exactly is covered by this law; can politicians or powerful figures easily take down potentially incriminating information from search engines? What determines information that is vague or outdated? Does a citizen really need to petition a court for every bit of information they wish to have removed from search engines?

The case is ostensibly about data protection, but Google wasn't sharing his personal medical records; the individual in this case wanted newspaper articles that mentioned a public transaction removed from Google. I'd stress that I'm not dismissing the ruling, but I do think some of the concerns about its implications seem reasonable.

 

[syllogism]

The actual ruling

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=252617

 

[Kinitari]

This is... complicated. On the one hand, I can appreciate and understand the idea to erase internet history about yourself, on the other, that shit would be really hard to do - and I don't really know if it's Google's responsibility.

If someone made a tweet about this guys foreclosure, and you could Google it - would it still be up to Google to remove it? What about Twitter? Or Bing? I guess I should read more about the ruling

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yes, the courts are to interpret laws and other legal acts including EU directives. They judged this violated an EU directive. Specifically this one:
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31)

Ushh, you're absolutely right. This is pretty weird, though - it's a 20 year old directive which is meant to be implemented locally that got re-interpreted in 2012 (without a mandate obviously, as per most courts). But you're right, this is obviously the application of a given interpretation of the law.

The actual nature of it, though, still worries me.

What power? This is about giving power to users. And I have pretty decent faith in EU to stick with their citizens. This isn't USA where the goverment will always fuck you over if some corporation can make money on it.

Of course it would be wielding power. It's clearly not up to Google to decide what does and doesn't contravene this law. A news article about how you - Adrian Werner - was once involved in police enquiries relating to a crime that you later had no involvement in might be deemed reasonable to be removed (though you could still go to a local library and find the news article about it, I assume, which suggests that not all data is equal, but whatever). What about an article about you winning the lottery? Or about a drunken fight you had with your wife in a car park that caused you to be charged with a disorder offense? What if it was 16 years ago? What if it was yesterday? None of these articles would be untrue, so it's not a case of libel. You may wish for all of them to be removed, Google may wish for none of them to be removed. Someone needs to decide which is these articles are ""irrelevant" and outdated data" - and that presumably falls to the courts. Ergo, there certainly is a power being wielded here.

It reminds me a great deal of press regulation, which also has many supporters championing its use to give protection to people's rights, likewise by having courts reinterpreting laws which results in them saying what can and can't be published. I'm similarly uncomfortable with that.

 

[Septimius]

Google links to data that is an invasion of privacy. Placing the burden on Google to remove 'irrelevant' things is making Google an internet police, saying "you can't go over here". It's the site with the privacy invading data that's breaking the law. Not Google. It'd be like suing Google for allowing search hits to ThePirateBay.

 

[Funky Papa]

This raises a number of questions, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the reasoning. Where was this information that a Google search led to stored? How easy would it be to have found the information about this auction notice without a search engine? Aren't foreclosures and repossessed property public information and therefore subject to laws related to the release and availability of such information? Who exactly is covered by this law; can politicians or powerful figures easily take down potentially incriminating information from search engines? What determines information that is vague or outdated? Does a citizen really need to petition a court for every bit of information they wish to have removed from search engines?

The case is ostensibly about data protection, but Google wasn't sharing his personal medical records; the individual in this case wanted newspaper articles that mentioned a public transaction removed from Google. I'd stress that I'm not dismissing the ruling, but I do think some of the concerns about its implications seem reasonable.

That's not exactly what happened, though.

A Spanish citizen wanted to remove references from the internet to an auction ordered in order to pay his debts with the Social Security, more precisely two articles published by the newspaper La Vanguardia and all of Google's search results pointing to them.

Spanish authorities said that La Vanguardia had no obligation to remove their articles as they were lawful. However, the way Google was indexing said personal information and making it available for everytone to see was not falling within European directives, so they ordered Google to remove references to that auction from their search results. Google appealed and the case finally went to the EUCJ, which has resolved that, indeed, by massively indexing personal information on the internet and making it available through search results, Google was not following the directives related to personal data processing, thus the verdict.

It makes plenty of sense when you think about it.

Google links to data that is an invasion of privacy. Placing the burden on Google to remove 'irrelevant' things is making Google an internet police, saying "you can't go over here". It's the site with the privacy invading data that's breaking the law. Not Google. It'd be like suing Google for allowing search hits to ThePirateBay.

Read above

 

[CyclopsRock]

It makes plenty of sense when you think about it.

Does it, though? It's legal to write the articles, and publish them, and presumably print them, but not legal to link to it via an obvious keyword (they guy's name)? That "makes plenty of sense"?

 

[syllogism]

Google links to data that is an invasion of privacy. Placing the burden on Google to remove 'irrelevant' things is making Google an internet police, saying "you can't go over here". It's the site with the privacy invading data that's breaking the law. Not Google. It'd be like suing Google for allowing search hits to ThePirateBay.

It's comparable to a copyright takedown notice and Google complies with those as well. They only act, at least in theory, upon a valid request, they don't have to actively police anything.

 

[jorma]

Google links to data that is an invasion of privacy. Placing the burden on Google to remove 'irrelevant' things is making Google an internet police, saying "you can't go over here". It's the site with the privacy invading data that's breaking the law. Not Google. t'd be like suing Google for allowing search hits to ThePirateBay.

You were doing so well and then you fucked it all up with the last sentence. TPB and Google do the same things, man.

 

[Nicktendo86]

It really doesn't make sense to me at all. The story was true so the paper had no obligation at all to remove it, but a search engine who you could use to find said articles, which again are lawful, is somehow in the wrong? As someone said above would this apply to an index at a library?

It may well not fall in line with European directives, but I don't really agree with those directives in the first place. This is information that is legally obtainable.

 

[Funky Papa]

Does it, though? It's legal to write the articles, and publish them, and presumably print them, but not legal to link to it via an obvious keyword (they guy's name)? That "makes plenty of sense"?

I suggest you to read the PDF in full. It's long, but clearly worded.

 

[Kinitari]

That's not exactly what happened, though.

A Spanish citizen wanted to remove references from the internet to an auction ordered in order to pay his debts with the Social Security, more precisely two articles published by the newspaper La Vanguardia and all of Google's search results pointing to them.

Spanish authorities said that La Vanguardia had no obligation to remove their articles as they were lawful. However, the way Google was indexing said personal information and making it available for everytone to see was not falling within European directives, so they ordered Google to remove references to that auction from their search results. Google appealed and the case finally went to the EUCJ, which has resolved that, indeed, by massively indexing personal information on the internet and making it available through search results, Google was not following the directives related to personal data processing, thus the verdict.

It makes plenty of sense when you think about it.


Read above

It makes even less sense like that.

Anyone could go into a library and retrieve that information, they could look up those articles about the man it sounds like - or just go directly to their website.

But specifically googling it is crossing some line? It's not that this information is REALLY private, because if it was, it would be illegal for the newspaper to post it, it's just that Google makes it too easy to find this information - which is crazy, and it makes this ruling seem... ill informed.

How about this... can this man request that Google expunges information about this case from Google? Because it talks about the original articles he wanted to remove. Does that mean ALL articles about this case need to be removed, or only articles that mention his foreclosure?

 

[SecretMoblin]

The more of this ruling I read the less I agree with it.

 

[obin_gam]

It's not that easy, though. Any person can ask Google to remove their personal information from the search results, but Google may or may not comply. Then it's up to the courts and regulators.

How do I do this? Where do I email the request?

 

[syllogism]

It really doesn't make sense to me at all. The story was true so the paper had no obligation at all to remove it, but a search engine who you could use to find said articles, which again are lawful, is somehow in the wrong? As someone said above would this apply to an index at a library?

It may well not fall in line with European directives, but I don't really agree with those directives in the first place. This is information that is legally obtainable.

The only reason the initial publication was legally justified was because it took place upon the order of the Ministry of Labour and Social affairs and had a legally justified intent. It's not because the story was true, as they were processing and publicizing sensitive private information.

Also just because something is legally obtainable does not mean mass media is free to publish it. Your privacy is still protected to some degree even if private individuals can technically access it by requesting it from some government entity.

 

[Nicktendo86]

But mass media, in this case Google, are not publishing it, they are linking to it upon request of the user. Information which is legally obtainable, if the information is found to be outdated or irrelevant and infringes on somebody's personal privacy surely the source, i.e. the newspaper, should be made to remove the article?

 

[Partial Gamification]

What if I offered a paid service that tapped the non-EU archives where a person could pay a Euro to lookup the "internet history" of the person? Service is contracted in EU but performed outside EU, then results returned to EU.

I don't know it seems like there will be a clear disadvantage in both (public) information access and having the resources to actually follow through with a take down request if it is not honored.

 

[Kinitari]

The only reason the initial publication was legally justified was because it took place upon the order of the Ministry of Labour and Social affairs and had a legally justified intent. It's not because the story was true, as they were processing and publicizing sensitive private information.

Also just because something is legally obtainable does not mean mass media is free to publish it. Your privacy is still protected to some degree even if private individuals can technically access it by requesting it from some government entity.

So if I went to that newspapers website, and typed in that man's name in an internal search - and found those archived articles, would that be protected?

What about articles that contain a lot of information, but one line might discuss someone going bankrupt - does that whole article need to be removed from Google?

I'm still reading the ruling, but it's a bit of an endeavor, and lots of legal speak.

 

[The Technomancer]

This raises a number of questions, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the reasoning. Where was this information that a Google search led to stored? How easy would it be to have found the information about this auction notice without a search engine? Aren't foreclosures and repossessed property public information and therefore subject to laws related to the release and availability of such information? Who exactly is covered by this law; can politicians or powerful figures easily take down potentially incriminating information from search engines? What determines information that is vague or outdated? Does a citizen really need to petition a court for every bit of information they wish to have removed from search engines?

The case is ostensibly about data protection, but Google wasn't sharing his personal medical records; the individual in this case wanted newspaper articles that mentioned a public transaction removed from Google. I'd stress that I'm not dismissing the ruling, but I do think some of the concerns about its implications seem reasonable.

This is where I'm at. Sounds good...kinda?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I suggest you to read the PDF in full. It's long, but clearly worded.

I have. It basically says that Google makes it too easy to find all the legal information available about someone, and that it should be harder. I still don't think that makes sense.

Also just because something is legally obtainable does not mean mass media is free to publish it. Your privacy is still protected to some degree even if private individuals can technically access it by requesting it from some government entity.

That's not the case here, though - the ruling specifically states that there's nothing wrong with the website in question hosting it. Nor is there anything wrong with the newspaper hosting it in having a site-wide search that reveals any article involving this guy (which, I imagine, now includes at least one article about how you're not longer allowed to search for due to some information which they're allowed to re-print!)

How do I do this? Where do I email the request?

Google it?

 

[CyclopsRock]

What if I offered a paid service that tapped the non-EU archives where a person could pay a Euro to lookup the "internet history" of the person? Service is contracted in EU but performed outside EU, then results returned to EU.

I don't know it seems like there will be a clear disadvantage in both (public) information access and having the resources to actually follow through with a take down request if it is not honored.

They mention in the ruling that because Google has a Spanish office, that they offer their services in Spain and that they sell adverts in Spain (which is what makes the service profitable) then they come under the jurisdiction of the EU, whether the actual processing takes place in the EU or not.

 

[ProfessorX]

Good news. Completely agree.

My feeling is that this would never pass through the courts in the USA,
too bad for us Americans.

 

[syllogism]

So if I went to that newspapers website, and typed in that man's name - and found those archived articles, would that be protected?

I'm not sure if the ruling answers that question.

What about articles that contain a lot of information, but one line might discuss someone going bankrupt - does that whole article need to be removed from Google?

Difficult question, but it would likely be determined on a case by case basis, balancing public interest in the information with the right to privacy and the sensitivity of the information. More importantly, it appears that the article would only have be removed from searches made by the basis of the name of the person whose private sensitive information the article contains. If you search for something else and happen to stumble upon a result that links to a page containing sensitive information, Google likely wouldn't have to remove that result.

 

[Kinitari]

Near the end of the ruling

As the data subject may, in the light of his fundamental rights under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, request that the information in question no longer be made available to the general public on account of its inclusion in such a list of results, those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of the search engine but also the interest of the general public in having access to that information upon a search relating to the data subject’s name. However, that would not be the case if it appeared, for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, that the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having, on account of its inclusion in the list of results, access to the information in question.

So what this says as far as I understand is that even if the general public thinks this information is important, it can still be blocked.

UNLESS a reason, like the sort of role the target of search plays in public, makes the information about him important to the general public.

It seems crazy arbitrary to me, but I did skip over a lot of that text to get to the conclusion.

Anyway, it seems like if you're famous enough, you're not protected? And there might be other reasons why you wouldn't be protected.

 

[RangerX]

This is a very good ruling. There needs to be checks and balnces on multinationals otherwise they would infringe the most basic of civil liberties.

 

[Partial Gamification]

They mention in the ruling that because Google has a Spanish office, that they offer their services in Spain and that they sell adverts in Spain (which is what makes the service profitable) then they come under the jurisdiction of the EU, whether the actual processing takes place in the EU or not.

Right but its free for the user, would the situation be different if it was a paid service? Are there not private background checks available in the EU? Would the ruling also affect that service, or ar there already rigourous privacy protections on these companies? In the US, there are companies in this industry that are really shady.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is a very good ruling. There needs to be checks and balnces on multinationals otherwise they would infringe the most basic of civil liberties.

Meaningful checks and balances. This one just seems weird.

 

[SyNapSe]

I'm all for protecting privacy but this seems to make no sense at all. The information.. isn't private? and the courts have ruled that that part is legal.

 

[not psycho]

Terrible ruling. It gives broad power (the "mere wish" to delete the information is sufficient for a claim) while providing no protection for availability of information.

In particular, it makes the bizarre distinction that while information can be legal and, in fact, protected by freedoms granted to legitimate journalism, none of those freedoms carry over to the search engine. In effect, the protection granted to journalism, and to information in general, is in name only, because zero protections are given to actually finding the information.

Looks like what you'll end up with are the same courts that do things like convicting Google employees and giving them prison terms because a bullying video was uploaded to Youtube (a video which none of them even knew about) now having extremely broad censorship powers. It would be surprising if the censorship was not used for political purposes, especially because as I mentioned, even when journalism is protected, the search engine is not protected in showing it in the results.

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not sure if the ruling answers that question.


Difficult question, but it would likely be determined on a case by case basis, balancing public interest in the information with the right to privacy and the sensitivity of the information. More importantly, it appears that the article would only have be removed from searches made by the basis of the name of the person whose private sensitive information the article contains. If you search for something else and happen to stumble upon a result that links to a page containing sensitive information, Google likely wouldn't have to remove that result.

Logistically, that could get complicated quick - but I can understand it a bit better now. Considering the nature of these requests, I don't think the actual de-indexing would be difficult, I think the difficult part would just be about ruling when a person should or should not be protected by this measure - which I imagine is outside of Google's mandate.

I wonder what happens though if you become internet famous - when people are tweeting and blogging your name every few minutes.