Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: goodroi
GOOGLE HAD NO RIGHT TO SPREAD THE NEWS FURTHER
despite the citizen objecting to this
Every time he searches for his name, there it is, staring him in the face.
Google might not be responsible for the original article, but their "readership" is in the millions and millions, and every single one of them is looking at it
A top EU court has ruled Google must amend some search results at the request of ordinary people in a test of the so-called "right to be forgotten".
The European Union Court of Justice said links to "irrelevant" and outdated data should be erased on request.
when the private citizen has expressed in writing his will of deletion
In this case the guy should go to the newspaper and request the page be taken down or a noindex meta tag put on the page.
This *does* include the source material (nobody has said otherwise, to the best of my knowledge)
Spare me the flame: this EU High Court ruling creates *automatically* incontestable legal precedent allowing any citizen in the EU to request in national court deletion of source material in any currently live media.
14 On 5 March 2010, Mr Costeja González, a Spanish national resident in Spain, lodged with the AEPD a complaint against La Vanguardia Ediciones SL, which publishes a daily newspaper with a large circulation, in particular in Catalonia (Spain) (‘La Vanguardia’), and against Google Spain and Google Inc. The complaint was based on the fact that, when an internet user entered Mr Costeja González’s name in the search engine of the Google group (‘Google Search’), he would obtain links to two pages of La Vanguardia’s newspaper, of 19 January and 9 March 1998 respectively, on which an announcement mentioning Mr Costeja González’s name appeared for a real-estate auction connected with attachment proceedings for the recovery of social security debts.
15 By that complaint, Mr Costeja González requested, first, that La Vanguardia be required either to remove or alter those pages so that the personal data relating to him no longer appeared or to use certain tools made available by search engines in order to protect the data. Second, he requested that Google Spain or Google Inc. be required to remove or conceal the personal data relating to him so that they ceased to be included in the search results and no longer appeared in the links to La Vanguardia. Mr Costeja González stated in this context that the attachment proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years and that reference to them was now entirely irrelevant.
16 By decision of 30 July 2010, the AEPD rejected the complaint in so far as it related to La Vanguardia, taking the view that the publication by it of the information in question was legally justified as it took place upon order of the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and was intended to give maximum publicity to the auction in order to secure as many bidders as possible.
damaging personal data
concepts of liberty that were inconceivable in the past, are being gradually conceived, formed and accepted - despite resistance by the blind
The complainant in this case requested deletion of the source material and was denied.
I'm not a fan of the EU either, but its good to see that there is at least one body who can keep Google in check.
what I take away from this, is that Google just got slapped by the EU
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt told shareholders Wednesday that Europe’s top court erred when it ruled that the search engine can be forced to erase links to Web content about individuals.
In response to a question at Google’s annual shareholder meeting, Schmidt said the case reflects “a collision between a right to be forgotten and a right to know.” A balance must be struck between those two objectives, Schmidt added and ”Google believes … that the balance that was struck was wrong.”
Chief Legal Office David Drummond said Google is still studying the decision but called it “disappointing,” saying that it ”went too far.”Google's Eric Schmidt Says The EU Got The "Balance Was Struck Wrong" [blogs.wsj.com]
if one wants to disappear and the other wants to be famous who wins in light of this ruling?
laws in most countries exist to deal with these questions
The Guardian understands that the applications have been made to remove links to information that the complainants say is outdated or irrelevant including, in the UK, a former politician who is now seeking office and wishes information about their behaviour while in office to be removed. A man convicted of possessing child abuse images has demanded links to pages about his conviction are taken out of the index, while a doctor has said that negative reviews from patients should not be searchable.
One could say that a thief that's done their time and is now out of jail and repented should be given a chance. That chance won't happen if a search shows their crime as if it's was only yesterday.
In some jurisdictions a conviction does become "spent" if the person stays out of trouble for a certain length of time.
The best way to be "forgotten" is to change your name to John Smith.
That would let them comply with the law but render it toothless.