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

[Richard Hill]

Dear Vint,

Thank you for your comment.  There will be litigation only if the search provider refuses the citizen's request.  And the litigation will be expensive for the search provider only if the search provider chooses to participate in the legal process under which the citizen would request a data protection officer or court to order the removal of a link.

A search provider is free to make a judgment based on its own standards.  If the citizen does not agree with that judgement, the citizen can take the matter to the authorities.  The search provider could default, and leave it up to the authorities to evaluate the merits of the citizen's case.

You say that, in your opinion, I am trivializing the problem.  You are of course entitled to your opinion.  But I would invite you to consider whether you might be not be assigning enough weight to the desire of some citizens to retain control of how much can easily be found out about them using search engines.

By the way, the situation is rather similar, at the meta-level, regarding copyright and defamation.  The owner of copyright material can ask a company (albeit not a search engine) to remove material that it believes to be violating its copyright.  If the company does not comply, the copyright owner can initiate a court case.  Ditto for defamatory material.

Best,
Richard
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
  Sent: lundi, 19. mai 2014 14:37
  To: rhill at hill-a.ch
  Cc: Pablo García Mexía; Frédéric Donck; Delegates Chapter; European Chapters; Privacy list; Elist publicpolicy
  Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [European-chapters] ECJ: Internet searchengine's data processing responsibilities


  richard,
  litigation is EXPENSIVE. Google is being forced to make a judgment based not on its own standards but on an uncertain "standard" that is not clear in the opinion expressed by ECJ. This is not a good outcome. You trivialize the problem in my opinion.


  vint





  On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

    Dear Pablo,

    Perhaps I misunderstood the ECJ judgement, but it seems to me that it does not impose any obligation on Google to adjudicate privacy or to substitute itself for a judge.  As I understand it, the ECJ says that a private person can request that certain links be removed.  If the search provider refuses, then the private person can ask his national authorities (data protection officer or courts, as the case may be) to evaluate his request and, if it is justified, to order the search provider to remove the link.

    Best,
    Richard
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org]On Behalf Of Pablo García Mexía
      Sent: lundi, 19. mai 2014 11:35
      To: Frédéric Donck
      Cc: Delegates Chapter; European Chapters; Privacy list; Elist publicpolicy
      Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [European-chapters] ECJ: Internet searchengine's data processing responsibilities


      ​Just wrote an article on my blog on Spanish ​newspaper ABC.es concerning this crucial ruling: http://abcblogs.abc.es/ley-red/ 
      [In Spanish, sorry!!]
      Google does searches; the ECJ will have it adjudicate on "privacy" from now on. And yet, how can Google substitute to a judge on issues as relevant and touchy as these?
      Best wishes.





      ​



      On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:13 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 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




      -- 

      Pablo García Mexía, J.D., Ph.D. 
      Profesor visitante de Derecho de Internet
      The College of William & Mary


      Sigue mi columna semanal en ABC.es
      http://abcblogs.abc.es/ley-red/





    _______________________________________________
    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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140519/dc63a132/attachment.htm>