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

Mon May 19 07:11:03 PDT 2014

Vint and Richard,

I think you need to find a balance in which service providers find how to produce the least possible harm to individuals without affecting normal operation of their businesses. However, I believe that SP companies should invest more financial resources to alleviate the damage they cause to the rights of individuals finding the right balance between all sectors.

Hector

Héctor Ariel Manoff

Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen

Viamonte 1145 10º Piso

C1053ABW Buenos Aires

República Argentina

Te: (54-11) 4371-6100

Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365

E-mail:  <mailto:amanoff at vmf.com.ar> amanoff at vmf.com.ar

Web:  <http://www.vmf.com.ar> http://www.vmf.com.ar

De: Chapter-delegates [mailto:chapter-delegates-bounces at elists.isoc.org] En nombre de Vint Cerf
Enviado el: lunes, 19 de mayo de 2014 10:25
Para: rhill at hill-a.ch
CC: Delegates Chapter; Pablo García Mexía; Privacy list; Elist publicpolicy; European Chapters
Asunto: Re: [Chapter-delegates] [European-chapters] ECJ: Internet searchengine's data processing responsibilities

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

---
Este mensaje no contiene virus ni malware porque la protección de avast! Antivirus está activa.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20140519/4ea25e2b/attachment.htm>