http___www.tomislavstankovic.com_blog_tag_google__1.xml
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 12.1 13.1 13.2 14.1 14.2 15.1 15.2 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.2 18.1 19.1 20.1 21.1 21.2
Get the best search news, tips and resources, delivered each day. The “Right To Be Forgotten” – EU Court Gives People Ability To Delete Their Google Search Results The “right to be forgotten”: a triumph of individual privacy rights or censorship? It’s going to depend on how it plays out in specific circumstances. The Luxembourg-based European Union Court of Justice, Europe’s “top court,” ruled earlier today that Google can be compelled to remove information about individuals from search results as part of a new, EU-specific “right to be forgotten.” The ruling will have no impact on US search results or those in other markets. However the ruling is significant in that it creates another chasm between the way that Google operates in North America and Europe. Google’s antitrust settlement in Europe is similar in that it creates an EU-specific SERP. The case arose when a Spanish citizen wanted information on real estate debts (the auction of his house) removed from Google’s Spanish search results. The information was published in a Spanish newspaper. The individual, Mr. Costeja González, asked the newspaper to remove the information because the debt had been resolved and the matter was 16 years old. The paper refused. Ultimately, the dispute resulted in a legal case in Spain against Google and wound up before the National High Court of Spain. The Spanish court referred a number of questions about the case to the EU Court of Justice. The EU Court of Justice effectively ruled that individual privacy rights trump almost all other considerations when it comes to personal data (reputation). This amounts to the formal establishment of a “right to be forgotten” in Europe. It applies to search engines even where the underlying site or data source (a newspaper site in this case) is not required to remove the content and continues to publish it online. This part of the ruling makes almost no sense. I’m quite sympathetic to the idea behind this ruling: that after some (unspecified) period of time some types of information become “outdated” or “irrelevant.” In California, there’s a new law that (called the “eraser law“) that allows individuals to have their “youthful indiscretions” (occurring before age 18) deleted or removed from the internet. The idea is that some unfortunate act or incident that happens when someone is a minor (e.g., “sexting”) shouldn’t haunt people for the rest of their adult lives. That’s fair. However, the distinction here is that the EU ruling applies to adults. There’s also considerable ambiguity surrounding the ruling. There would appear to be numerous potential problems with practical implementation of the right to be forgotten. How much time must pass before lawful information becomes “outdated”? Will the rules be applied evenhandedly in separate jurisdictions in Europe? What about professional negligence or low-level public figures trying to control public perceptions; what information does the public have a right to know? Here’s what the EU court says about the public interest and the right to be forgotten: However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, the Court holds that a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data. The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users. There’s no guidance given regarding what sorts of examples might weigh in favor of a public continuing “right to know.” Again, this only seems to apply to search engines and not to the originator or original publisher of the content. It appears that the procedure for removal of content would require the subject to make a request to the search engine first. If that’s refused, he or she has recourse to his or her country’s data protection authority, which would then have (apparently ultimate) discretion over the determination. I’m not clear on whether there’s any appeal process for the search engine (I assume not). If not, it would essentially give data protection authorities significant power and control over what appears about individuals in search indexes. (Think about the potential for bribery or corruption in cases involving politicians, business executives and so on.) While the privacy idea behind the “right to be forgotten” is valid, this decision is highly problematic for several reasons, not least of which is that it singles out search engines. It remains to be seen whether there will now be a flood of requests by individuals to remove content about them from Google and Bing search results. I wouldn’t go so far as to say this sanctions “censorship,” but I would argue that in some cases the practical effect of the rule may amount to the same thing. Below is a summary of the EU court’s decision and the rationale behind it. We're listening. Have something to say about this article? Share it with us on Facebook, Twitter or our LinkedIn Group.
1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 5.1 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1 10.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 12.1 12.2 12.3 13.1 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 18.1
Odluka Europskog suda pravde koja kaže da Google na zahtjev fizičke osobe, u određenim okolnostima, mora ukloniti sporne informacije iz rezultata pretraživanja na prvu se čini kao rješenje svih problema svima onima koji žele neke informacije o sebi trajno obrisati. Da to nije tako jednostavno moći ćete vidjeti u nastavku. Nedugo prije odluke Europskog suda objavio sam tekst pod naslovom ”Zašto Google neće obrisati stranicu koja vam se ne sviđa” koji vam može poslužiti kao uvod u temu. Prije su ljudi kako bi došli do vašeg telefonskog broja morali znati u kojoj ulici živite kako bi nazvali 988 i mogli zatražiti vaš broj, a danas je dovoljno da znaju vaše ime i prezime kako bi iz bilo kojeg dijela svijeta došli do vas i pronašli o vama više nego mislite da je to moguće čak i prije nego vas odluče kontaktirati. Prema Googleu, pravo na zaborav moguće je konzumirati kada objavljeni podaci više nisu aktualni, narušavaju privatnost, zastarjeli su, irelevantni i kao takvi više nisu u interesu javnosti. Ljudi s godinama mijenjaju svoj izgled, osjećaje, načine razmišljanja i sl. te imaju pravo živjeti svoj život bez da ih neki nevini period iz prošlosti prati do kraja života. Međutim, kada su u pitanju javne osobe ovo pravo nije moguće konzumirati!? Posebno u slučaju kriminalnih radnji. Zapravo kada su u pitanju kriminalne radnje čak nije niti potrebno da se radi o javnoj osobi kako bi Google s velikom vjerojatnošću odbio zahtjev. However, inasmuch as the removal of links from the list of results could, depending on the information at issue, have effects upon the legitimate interest of internet users potentially interested in having access to that information, the Court holds that a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject’s fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data. The Court observes in this regard that, whilst it is true that the data subject’s rights also override, as a general rule, that interest of internet users, this balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject’s private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life. – Court of Justice of the European Union PRESS RELEASE No 70/14 Više pitanja nego odgovora Problem teritorijalnosti – kakve koristi od propisa koji uvjetuje micanje podataka iz rezultata pretraživanja nacionalne tražilice koja pokriva određeno geografsko područje kada živimo u vremenu u kojemu Internet ne poznaje granice. Pravo na zaborav može ići u tri smjera – na nacionalnoj razini, EU razini ili globalno. Sve tri razine dovode u sukob fizički i logični prostor tj. fizičke i logičke granice koje netko mora odrediti. Sukob prava na zaborav i sukob na pristup informacijama – osoba A želi ukloniti određeni sadržaj dok osoba B želi imati mogućnost pristupa tom sadržaju kako bi mogla donijeti najbolju odluku za sebe. Informacija od javnog interesa nasuprot informacijama koje interesiraju javnost – nije lako odrediti koje su to informacije od javnog interesa i one kao takve ostaju u rezultatima pretraživanja nasuprot informacijama koje javnost u nekom trenutku zanimaju, a koje ne moraju istovremeno biti i od javnog interesa te mogu biti uklonjene iz rezultata pretraživanja. Relevantnost sadržaja – teško je odrediti relevantnost sadržaja ako se ne zna u kojem je kontekstu objavljen i za koju svrhu taj sadržaj kasnije može biti tražen pomoću tražilica. Sadržaj opet može postati (i)relevantan ovisno o okolnostima. Može li informacija koja je jednom postala irelevantna opet postati relevantna? Algoritmi ili ljudi? – tko odlučuje koji sadržaj ukloniti iz rezultata pretraživanja, a koji ne. Algoritam to može učiniti brže, ali čovjek točnije? Ova pitanja tiču se nekoliko strana uključenih ovom odlukom: osoba o kojoj su objavljene informacije i koja želi ukloniti te informacije, vlasnik medija na kojemu su objavljene informacije koji želi imati taj sadržaj na svojim web stranicama, tražilica koja živi od indeksiranja sadržaja i želi ga imati što više, korisnici tražilice tj. javnost koja pretražuje te informacije kako bi donosile neke odluke i zaključke, te Agencija za zaštitu osobnih podataka, Vrhovni sud i Europski sud pravde koji ne stvaraju ili objavljuju takve informacije, ali imaju moć odlučiti kako će s njima postupati ostale uključene strane. Najbolji način za borbu protiv neželjenog sadržaja je redovita objava novog sadržaja. Google, u ovom trenutku i ovom odlukom, ne može sporne informacije učiniti da nestanu s Weba i prema tome pravo na zaborav zapravo je žmirenje na jedno oko. Ako netko želi naći neku informaciju o vama on će to i učiniti neovisno o Googleovom pravu na zaborav. Savjetodavno vijeće O pravu na zaborav puno se raspravljalo i upravo iz razloga da se donese najbolja odluka osnovano je Savjetodavno vijeće koje raspravlja o svim aspektima odluke Europskog suda. Namjera je postići ravnotežu između prava osobe da bude zaboravljena i prava javnosti na pristup informacijama. Održano je sedam višesatnih rasprava i svakom novom bi se odgovorilo na neka pitanja i otvorila mnoga koja bi ostala neodgovorena. Možda ne možete pobjeći od prošlosti, ali možete izabrati kakva će vam biti digitalna budućnost. Prema vašem mišljenju, koje informacije bi Google trebao zadržati, a koje zaboraviti?