Posts by Zane-insane

Google is a 'publisher' says Aussie court as it hands £20k damages to gangland lawyer

Re: So what if it "follows you around"?

It's not rerewiting history, or removing articles. It's simply delisting certain results, but only in instances when the persons name is entered. The result will still appear if they they search on different terms, or indeed search on a newspapers site directly. It's not an absolute right. They can and do argue about public interest, and they can stay up if they can justify that it is still relevant. Nothing to do with going to libraries and editing archives. The archive stays as it is. It's simply a balance of competing rights, looking at the proportionality of how Google indexes results. I don't need to see my neighbours mugshot from 10 years ago when he was wearing ladies clothes and was wrongly arrested for shoplifting. I don't need to be paying extra tax on his unemployment benefit, because he can't get a job because of that article. I don't need to see that result when I enter his name, there's likely no public interest. But the article can still appear in other search results if the newspaper really wants it to, just not appear in searches under his name

Google to appeal against €7m fine from Swedish watchdog for failing to remove search results under GDPR

Re: The wrong target?

But back in the real world, no-one will have the funds to go after multiple sites in multiple countries to take down information, many of whom will not be known, and may not cooperate. Besides, delisting isn't about removing the information entirely, it is about removing the search link between an individuals name and the content. Even with delsiting, the same content will still appear under different search terms

Re: Eh?

The judgement will spell it out, it is in Swedish though. Basically they interpreted it as not complying with privacy law, where you need consent and a legal basis to pass on personal information to another party. Personal information is only supposed to be used for the reasons it was collected. Reporting the name to the original publisher so they can circumvent the delisting request is probably not good enough.

I've not read the judgement, it is in Swedish - but under GDPR you need a legal basis to pass on personal information that you have requested, like someones name to another organisation, unless you have consent. I'm fairly sure when someone submits a delisting request, they are not doing it so the publisher can circumvent the request by republishing it, and likely make the result a higher as opposed to lower ranking. EU countries thankfully have more of a balance between privacy and freedom of information, meaning that the little guy doesn't get screwed quite as often.

Re: legal basis

It's down to privacy law and consent, collecting personal data and using it for a purpose that it was not collected for. Passing on the name of who requested the delisting (and remember it is simply relisting the result in association with the persons name, and not desliting in other circumstance - the search result will still appear against other search terms), is likely a breach of Swedish law. The person requesting the delisting is asking Google to deslist, and not the actual original publisher - so the relevance of passing on information is hard to justify, especially if the motivation is to allow the publisher to republish, and nullify the delisting request. Most countries do not look kindly to loopholes, and those trying to circumvent the law. The judgement will give details on the reasoning in Swedish law, I would assume it is not legal unless there is a "legal basis" for passing on personal information like a persons name. How things are worded in other countries just differ, so I wouldn't get hung up about how it is translated from Swedish to English

EU court rules Right To Be Forgotten doesn't apply outside member states

It's not the URLs that are excluded as such. It's the association of a name to the URL. So if Joe Blogs was found not guilty or even guilty 20 years ago of stealing some scones from the local shop in Scouserland, then he could apply for the result to be delisted. If they agreed it was excessive and out of date, or whatever else reason - then that result would not appear when someone searched for "Joe Blogs". It could still appear if someone searched scouserland scones thief. Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Re: "I bought the law..."

"So I presume you would be very happy if Google was not allowed to link to any articles about Tienanmen Square in it's search results - maybe no articles on Wikipedia either?"

Right to be forgotten is about privacy for individuals, so not relevant. It's a completely different scenario. So it wouldn't delist results if people typed in "Tiananmen Square". What it could do though, is if someone typed in "Joe Blogs", and the number one result for "Joe Bloggs" was that he was arrested at Tiananmen Square for protesting, then if they had "right to be forgotten", it could delist the Tiananmen result - but ONLY if someone typed in "joe blogs". The result would still appear if someone simply search on "Tiananmen Square".

Do remember the purpose of Right to be Forgotten, is to also delist inaccurate information, information that the average person cannot easily get removed. Think for a moment if someone posted something untrue about yourself - and it stopped you ever working again, as it was the number one result on Google when people searched for your name. How would you feel if you had no rights to rectify (or funds to legally fight a defamation case). How would you feel that Google and some tabloid that is known for sensationalisation and outright lies, were profiting from a story about you that wasn't entirely fair? Admittedly the test for excessive and outdated information will always be subjective to some degree. There is a much higher test for people public figures, and it doesn't even apply to events - just individuals. Anyway, there needs to be a balance for big business publishing whatever they want, and the little guy who wants to get on with his life and get or keep a job.

But your point abut the content being legal. Well maybe some (but not all of the content) is legal by itself. But the data protection that GDPR covers is also a legal requirement. Is it really that different than Google applying US copyright to the whole world. The EU has it's fault, but at least it stands up for the little guy

Google settles Right To Be Forgotten case on eve of appeal hearing

Re: How will I do my Due Dilligence now?

It sounds like he didn't pursue, so his name will still come up if searching. His anonymity is just for this actual challenge against Google, and I don't have a problem with that, as naming him would mean no-one would be able to fight privacy issues like this

Totally disagree, research shows that after a period of time many people with convictions are unlikely to reoffend, to same as extent as anyone else in the population. If they are being denied employment because the top google result mentions their past, that is not good for society.

Re: Funny old world ...

There is a fairly high standard of "public interest", any one in the public eye, such as politicians won't benefit.

Re: Question

An argument of Right to be forgotten, is after a certain amount of time your conviction is considered spent in the UK, and in most (but to all) cases you can truthfully state that you do not have a conviction any longer. Serious convictions are never spent, and certain jobs working with the vulnerable you still have to disclose. The idea is that a person is unlikely to be a risk after a certain amount time, and that having to declare a conviction prevents people from gaining employment. People who can't gain employment are more likely to reoffend, so there is a risk to society if we don't let people move on. If of course, the top google result mentions some conviction from a decade go, then it really bypasses the "rehabilitation of offenders" act, making it harder for someone to move on. The Right to be Forgotten isn't about removing the actual information from the internet, it's about it not appearing if someone searches on a name.

Re: A question for the lawyers

I would hope not, the point of the anonymity is surely to prevent the Streisand effect. Otherwise no-one would be able to challenge big corporations such as Google. The point is the cases were looking at the issue of maintaining privacy, if to do this you have to give up your privacy and have intense public publicity, then you lose either way and nothing can ever change.

Expanding Right To Be Forgotten slippery slope to global censorship, warn free speech fans

"Which, in a way, is worse. In this sense, the RTBF is intellectually dishonest. If the content is that bad, wouldn't it make more sense to actually force it to be taken down rather than saying that nobody can tell you where it is?"

That would be better, but in reality tracking down the owners and making them to do this would often not be possible. Particularly if they locate themselves in a country to bypass their responsibility. Your average person would not have the resources to successfully remove the content that should be removed. Of course, part of the issue is how Google chooses to index results and their interpretation of relevancy.

Rights for the ordinary man

This isn't about state censorship, there's sufficient safeguards in GDPR for this in terms of public interest. This is about privacy of individuals. Google is already removing results across all sites due to copyright infringement, so there is already precedent. They are only fighting it because this is of the benefit of ordinary members of public rather than big business.