[Chapter-delegates] [European-chapters] ECJ: Internet search engine's data processing responsibilities

Wed May 14 02:00:02 PDT 2014

Is it consistent?

It seems to me the situation is riddled with inconsistencies. For
instance how do we differentiate between current, historical and
archival data?  How do we distinguish roles and responsibilities along
the publication flow? 

It is a particularly problematic inconsistency to expunge (delete) data
without being clear about the context. Of course an index such as a
search engine is not deleting data sources but the references. As such
this is a librarian service. Should all libraries be required to delete
their indexes or redact data on request? In order to prevent further
dissemination?

C
> Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal) <mailto:jozef.halbersztadt at gmail.com>
> 14 May 2014 07:37
> The ruling of the Tribunal is consistent with arriving General Data
> Protection Regulation. Position of the Parliament:
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0212
>
> Article 17 (AM 112) 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: (. . .)
>
> JH
>
> CW Mail <mailto:mail at christopherwilkinson.eu>
> 14 May 2014 06:52
> Good morning:I share Richard's reading of the ECJ judgement.
> No doubt authoritative interpretation will emerge in due course.
>
> CW
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer of the European
> region you are automatically subscribed to this list,
> which is regularly synchronized with the Internet
> Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
> rhill <mailto:rhill at hill-a.ch>
> 14 May 2014 05:40
> As I understand the situation,  the complainant did also sue the
> original Spanish source,  but the court held that the original
> publication was legal. 
>
> So it seems to me that what is significant about this case is the
> ruling that compling and making easily acesssible by searching on a
> person's name a complilation of information may violate European
> privacy law if the person requests that some infomation not be
> displayed even if the information itself is publicly available. 
>
> Best Richard
>
>
> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Matthew Ford
> Date:13/05/2014 14:03 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Vint Cerf
> Cc: Delegates Chapter ,European Chapters ,Elist publicpolicy ,Privacy
> list
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] ECJ: Internet search engine's data
> processing responsibilities
>
> +1. And why did the complainant sue Google and not the original
> (Spanish) source? It seems like a really hard way to go about not
> achieving what you want.
>
> Mat
>
> On 13 May 2014, at 11:55, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:
>
> > indexing crawlers just reflect what is on the web. Erasing links
> would require the crawler to REMEMBER what it is supposed to erase,
> even if the content is actually still on the web. Eventually you might
> end up having to remember more than there is on the web! Even if the
> content that was indexed went away, you would still have to remember
> in case it came back. This makes no sense to me.
> >
> > v
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Frédéric Donck <donck at isoc.org> wrote:
> > Dear All
> >
> >
> > Please find below a very important decision from the European Court
> of Justice.
> > In short, in its ruling from 13 May [Google vs Spanish Data
> Protection Agency (AEPD)], the Court of Justice of the European Union
> stated that an operator of Internet search engine is responsible for
> the processing that it carries out of personal data which appear on
> web pages published by third parties. More details in the attach. I
> would be interested to hear your views.
> >
> > We shall address it in our next EU newsletter but felt that the
> information deserved immediate distribution.
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > Frederic
> >
> > Frederic Donck
> > Director European Regional Bureau
> > Internet Society
> >
> > www.isoc.org
> >
> > Début du message réexpédié :
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
FBCS, CITP, MCMA
-------------------------
@ FirstHand
-------------------------
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
-------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140514/93c26c41/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: compose-unknown-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 770 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140514/93c26c41/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 599 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140514/93c26c41/attachment.asc>