December 18, 2014 at 8:45 am
Like Tim Berners-Lee, I find the "right to be forgotten" law in Europe to be dangerous.
I find the lack of the law to be dangerous.
Individuals have a right to determine who knows what about them. The data collected on a person belongs, with rare exceptions, to the person -- not to an anonymous corporation or to the State.
The most worrisome trend of the last one hundred years has been the continual aggregation of power by such entities, and the marginalisation of personal liberty. It must end, and the balance redressed.
This law is a step in that direction.
End of discussion.
December 18, 2014 at 8:46 am
First, note that EU privacy laws are generally very different from those in other parts of the world.
I'd have to say that I'm entirely in favor; just because there is the ability to store enormous amounts of data now, and there wasn't in the 1800's, doesn't mean that we need to store that data. The Sony Pictures breach is an example of data that can get out into 'the wild' that people may want removed. The CoolReaper backdoor and the CarrierIQ rootkit are examples of the types of data gathering capabilities that corporations are deploying in whole or in part. Both of those have the ability to take data a person might not want showing up on Google search results.
Now, here's some information on the proposal from the EU itself: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf
c) On the “Right to be Forgotten” : Individuals have the right - under certain conditions - to ask
search engines to remove links with personal information about them. This applies where the
information is inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes of the data
processing (para 93 of the ruling). The court found that in this particular case the interference with
a person’s right to data protection could not be justified merely by the economic interest of the
search engine. At the same time, the Court explicitly clarified that the right to be forgotten is
not absolute but will always need to be balanced against other fundamental rights, such as the
freedom of expression and of the media (para 85 of the ruling). A case-by-case assessment is
needed considering the type of information in question, its sensitivity for the individual’s private life
and the interest of the public in having access to that information. The role the person requesting
the deletion plays in public life might also be relevant.
The EU Parliament modified the proposal slightly; below is the EU Parliament's vote:
Article 17
Right to erasure
1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain
from the controller the erasure of personal data
relating to them and the abstention from further
dissemination of such data, and to obtain
from third parties the erasure of any links to, or
copy or replication of that data, where one of
the following grounds applies:
(a) the data are no longer necessary in relation
to the purposes for which they were
collected or otherwise processed
(b) the data subject withdraws consent on
which the processing is based according
to point (a) of Article 6 (1), or when the
storage period consented to has expired,
and where there is no other legal ground
for the processing of the data;
(c) the data subject objects to the processing
of personal data pursuant to Article 19;
(a) a court or regulatory authority based
in the Union has ruled as final and absolute
that the data concerned must
be erased;
(d) the data has been unlawfully processed.
1a. The application of paragraph 1 shall be dependent
upon the ability of the data controller
to verify that the person requesting the
erasure is the data subject.
2. Where the controller referred to
in paragraph 1 has made the
personal data public without a
justification based on Article 6(1), it
shall take all reasonable steps to
have the data erased, including by
third parties, without prejudice to
Article 77. The controller shall
inform the data subject, where
possible, of the action taken by the
relevant third parties.
The FAQ goes on:
Frequently Asked Questions
How will the Right to be Forgotten work in practice? Who can ask for a deletion of personal data and
how?
In practice, a search engine will have to delete information when it receives a specific request from a person
affected. This would mean that a citizen, whose personal data appears in search results linking to other
webpages when a search is done with that person’s name, requests the removal of those links. For example,
John Smith will be allowed to request Google to delete all search links to webpages containing his data,
when one enters the search query ‘John Smith’ in the Google search box.
Google will then have to assess the deletion request on a case-by-case basis and to apply the criteria
mentioned in EU law and the European Court’s judgment. These criteria relate to the accuracy, adequacy,
relevance - including time passed - and proportionality of the links, in relation to the purposes of the data
processing (paragraph 93 of the Court’s ruling).
The request may for example be turned down where the search engine operator concludes that for particular
reasons, such as for example the public role played by John Smith, the interest of the general public to
have access to the information in question justifies showing the links in Google search results.
In such cases, John Smith still has the option to complain to national data protection supervisory authorities
or to national courts. Public authorities will be the ultimate arbiters of the application of the Right to be
Forgotten.
The Right to be Forgotten is a right which is given to all citizens in the EU, no matter what their nationality,
subject to the conditions outlined above.
December 18, 2014 at 9:23 am
Nadrek (12/18/2014)
First, note that EU privacy laws are generally very different from those in other parts of the world.I'd have to say that I'm entirely in favor; just because there is the ability to store enormous amounts of data now, and there wasn't in the 1800's, doesn't mean that we need to store that data. The Sony Pictures breach is an example of data that can get out into 'the wild' that people may want removed.
[/quote]
Sony is a great example of how pointless and ineffective this law will be. I'm willing to bet that North Korea or any other rogue community with the ability to store data will simply ignore this quixotic law. A law is nothing but a piece of paper without the means to enforce it. Seriously, how much damage is the 'issue' doing anyway that it justifies inconveniencing the rest of the planet in it's quest for information and knowledge? Anyone have an assessment on that?
It does little to empower anyone, but I suppose it will make the paranoid feel better.
December 18, 2014 at 9:36 am
Awesomo (12/18/2014)
HiThere are some valid reasons for this new law. If I stole something when I was a crazy teenager, should it be known to everyone for evermore? Would you like the first google hit to be "Steve robbed Snickers bar"? Potential employers won't even read the detail, people make decisions just on the headline. People deserve the chance to make a new start.
Berners-Lee idea that "An employer could be prohibited from taking into account a person's juvenile crimes or minor crimes more than 10 years old" is just a pipe dream, how the heck would this be enforced?
....
I note that Berners-Lee agrees that incorrect data should be removed. But I think its easier to have one path to removal - you apply, then if its approved, you are removed from the search engines. It will never be totally reliable, but its a good start.
Fair points, and I agree with most of this. There are issues, though they may still occur. If you Google Steve Jones, you might get a strange headline that isn't me. However, I might still be penalized if you're considering me.
The single path makes sense, and having a process makes sense. I do worry about the balance.
December 18, 2014 at 9:43 am
I'm in favor of scrubbing information that can be proven incorrect (ex: a news story originally got the name wrong) or data that is private without any public value (ex: a stolen nude photo or even hacked emails).
However, I'm not in favor of scrubbing public records. There are cases where people convicted of crimes, murder in some cases, are sueing Google to have citations of their past convictions removed from search results. For example, there is a specific case where a German actor, Walter Sedlmayr, was murdered back in 1990. Two men, Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, were convicted of the murder, served time, and were subsequently released. Their attormeys sued Wikipedia to have their names removed from the Walter Sedlmayr biography. In my opinion, if you kill somebody, that is not your own personal information for which you can decide how it is used. That's factual and relevent public record. Wikipedia has so far refused to submit to the request.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
ccd3000 (12/18/2014)
This law sounds asinine to me and seems skewed against the greater good of society. If you're misrepresented (libel, slander, or defamation) then you sue the individual in court, not conjure up some new global 'right' and all the economic and legal burdens that come along with it for the rest of society. I sympathize with the goal but pass a more targeted law. If another site publishes it then perhaps they should simply be liable for damages? That seems more sensible to me then trying to purge the world's databases of every reference I find objectionable or inaccurate with a push of a button. I shudder at that the thought of the expense, waste and ineffectiveness of it all.
Impossible to manage this level of civil suits, especially with cost. If you were arrested, would you sue every publication that wrote about it? If the authorities got the name wrong and used yours, would you sue them and assume they would correct things?
It's easy to lean towards individual actions here, but the scale of this dwarfs the resources of most anyone.
December 18, 2014 at 9:49 am
GoofyGuy (12/18/2014)
Like Tim Berners-Lee, I find the "right to be forgotten" law in Europe to be dangerous.I find the lack of the law to be dangerous.
Individuals have a right to determine who knows what about them. The data collected on a person belongs, with rare exceptions, to the person -- not to an anonymous corporation or to the State.
The most worrisome trend of the last one hundred years has been the continual aggregation of power by such entities, and the marginalisation of personal liberty. It must end, and the balance redressed.
This law is a step in that direction.
End of discussion.
Not the end, and it's not that simple. It's easy to find cases on each side of the argument, and certainly the idea that we lose data out there due to how an individual views data about them is dangerous. There are things that I do which affect others in the world. If I do them publicly, that isn't necessarily "my" data.
December 18, 2014 at 9:53 am
ccd3000 (12/18/2014)
Nadrek (12/18/2014)
Anyone have an assessment on that?
Yes. As I pointed out earlier, North Korea and (most of) the rest of the world aren't bound by the law. Therefore, nobody who lives outside Europe is going to be inconvenienced, and even Europeans can get round it easily. So you're right - it's largely ineffective. But it's not going to have the apocalyptic effect that some suggest.
John
December 18, 2014 at 10:00 am
There are things that I do which affect others in the world. If I do them publicly, that isn't necessarily "my" data.
A careful rereading of my post indicates I allow for rare exceptions to 'my' data. Law enforcement may include such exceptions - so long as 'law enforcement' is not an excuse or a means to extend political or corporate power.
But I should not be sanguine as you about the mounting piles of information which may be used against the individual, his liberties, and his freedom. Europeans have rather more history and experience with totalitarianism - and its tools - than do Americans.
The EU law reflects that history; it is wisdom, gained at a terrible cost.
December 18, 2014 at 10:09 am
GoofyGuy (12/18/2014)
But I should not be sanguine as you about the mounting piles of information which may be used against the individual, his liberties, and his freedom. Europeans have rather more history and experience with totalitarianism -
and its tools - than do Americans.The EU law reflects that history; it is wisdom, gained at a terrible cost.
I'm not sanguine about the amount of data. It is disturbing in places, amazing in others. I certainly to worry about the growth of corporations, the centralization of power through data, as well as the problems that go with poor integrity or verification.
Not against the law, but I worry about it. Things like this should be used judiciously, not liberally, IMHO.
December 18, 2014 at 10:15 am
I certainly to worry about the growth of corporations, the centralization of power through data, as well as the problems that go with poor integrity or verification.
Again, please carefully reread my previous post, in which I indicated the ever-growing piles of data have the grave potential to serve as tools of corporate and State control.
When the Nazis invaded the Low Countries, one of the first things they sought out were governmental and police files on individual citizens. You may be assured the Nazis didn't do this just to draw up Christmas card lists.
(The Dutch files, by the way, were meticulous and of great assistance to the invader's control of the populace. The Belgian files were messy and of no use at all. A lesson here, I should think.)
December 18, 2014 at 10:26 am
I know someone in the US who committed a minor "stealing a snickers bar" offense that ended up in the police blotters of a couple local newspapers. When you search on his name, Google gives you the title of the articles. Which in one case is "Man charged with criminal assault" and in another "Man arrested for sex offenses". If you actually click on the links you'll see that he's not associated with either crime- he's listed at the bottom with "Joe Schmoe steals a candy bar." Guess what happens when he applies for a job, decades later...
It's way too easy for completely inaccurate information to get on the net, and there's no responsibility to correct it.
December 18, 2014 at 11:12 am
paul.kemner (12/18/2014)
I know someone in the US who committed a minor "stealing a snickers bar" offense that ended up in the police blotters of a couple local newspapers. When you search on his name, Google gives you the title of the articles. Which in one case is "Man charged with criminal assault" and in another "Man arrested for sex offenses". If you actually click on the links you'll see that he's not associated with either crime- he's listed at the bottom with "Joe Schmoe steals a candy bar." Guess what happens when he applies for a job, decades later...It's way too easy for completely inaccurate information to get on the net, and there's no responsibility to correct it.
But everything on the internet it TRUE!!!:-P
December 18, 2014 at 11:14 am
I guess, I just do not care. Not until it happens to me, then I care! Should I care before that? Boy, that is a great question!!! Am I thinking this through?
If I would care later, should I do something now? Gee, that might be worth some thought as well.
🙂
M.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
December 18, 2014 at 11:21 am
I just want to claim copyright on all my life data. Then if someone's using it without paying the price I set, I'll go all "RIAA" and seize their servers for piracy.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 51 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply