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

Mon May 19 06:25:30 PDT 2014

Richard,

the search provider is being asked to render judgment based on unclear law;
in any case, a disagreement between the provider and the plaintiff can lead
to litigation which is expensive and very time consuming. The ruling opens
the door to endless litigation in my opinion without much in the way of
guidelines for what is or isn't a reasonable basis for removal. In print
material, facts can stand and are not considered libelous as I understand
it. Why would this not also be the case for online content? Wouldn't it be
better to argue that the source of the information (which creates the link)
should by the party to remove the information if removal is justifiable?
 That would eliminate the discovery of links by web-crawlers.

As it stands, we would need to remember everything we are supposed to
"forget" - it's backwards.

v

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Richard Hill <rhill at hill-a.ch> wrote:

>  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<http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-05/cp140070en.pdf>
>>>  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/20140519/16fc1981/attachment.htm>