[Chapter-delegates] Right to be Forgotten

[Richard Hill]

Dear Chester,

When I read the judgement in question, I find that it did discuss the matter
of balancing privacy rights versus other rights, and concluded that, in the
particular case, the right to privacy prevailed.  Courts dealing with future
cases will also have to balance the right to privacy with other rights.

So I don't think that it is correct to say that the court did not address
the issue of freedom of speech.

And this is far from being the first case where a national judgement has
extraterritorial effects.  The first such significant case was Licra vs
Yahoo!, see

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!

Best,
Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chapter-delegates
> [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org]On Behalf Of Chester
> Soong
> Sent: lundi, 28. juillet 2014 05:53
> To: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Right to be Forgotten
>
>
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(r) Pro*
> Hi Glenn and Christine,
>
> I think the article is fear in asking the questions of such privacy
> rights from the users perspective in a technological world such as the
> Internet. But there are two important legal issues that most of these
> articles failed to bring up: The ruling or the judgement as a whole did
> not address the right to freedom of speech, which is one of the
> fundamental rights of their CF (Charter of Fundamental Rights) of the EU
> and that serves also as the foundation of the Data Protection
> Directives. It is why many people working in the privacy laws field
> believe the judgment is troublesome. The other significant issue is that
> this is the first case which the ECJ is "reaching out" with its
> jurisdiction to organizations outside of the EU. The judgement made a
> distinguishing definition between the roles Google Inc. and Google Spain
> SL in the case, where Google Spain as a sales agent of Google Inc. So
> even when Google Inc. doesn't have any presence in the EU, while it
> relies on the revenue generated by Google Spain, it established a
> connection between Google Inc. to the EU presence. This has a
> significant effect for organizations, especially commercial entities,
> who are doing business with EU citizens without any EU presence (or
> think they don't have EU presence) may find themselves subject to the EU
> Data Protection laws.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Chester
>
> On 27/07/2014 9:39 PM, Christine Runnegar wrote:
> > *This message was transferred with a trial version of
> CommuniGate(r) Pro*
> > Thanks for sharing this Glenn.
> >
> > And here is a link to the press release from the EU Article 29
> Data Protection Working Party regarding the meeting with search
> engine providers
> >
> >
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/press-material/press-
release/art29_press_material/20140725_wp29_press_release_right_to_be_forgott
en.pdf
>
> On 24 Jul 2014, at 7:18 pm, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> Interesting article on the  'Right to be forgotten' in Europe and Google
>>
>>
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/24/google-hauled-in-by-europe
-over-right-to-be-forgotten-reaction
>>
>>
>> Glenn McKnight
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
_______________________________________________
As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org