“Individuals can ask Google Inc. to remove links to news articles, court judgments and other documents in search results for their name, the European Union’s highest court said Tuesday,” Frances Robinson reports for The Wall Street Journal. “It was a surprise decision regarding a landmark case in Spain which will have implications for privacy throughout Europe.”
“The European Court of Justice said search companies are responsible for personal data that shows up on Web pages they link to in search results — unexpectedly changing its approach from the Advocate General’s opinion last year,” Robinson reports. “The decision means that individuals can ask Google or other search operators to take down links to web pages that are published by third parties, such as newspapers, containing information relating them when searched by name — such as coverage of court cases or legal announcements.”
“The Court said that because the impact on people of what comes up in search results relating to them is so huge, they should have the right to get certain material removed, but also that a balance needs to be struck with the public interest, especially with people who have a prominent role in society,” Robinson reports. “‘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,’ it said, as well as the public interest, ‘which may vary, in particular, according to the role played by the data subject in public life.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: If Google loves one thing, it loves data most. Taking any data away is the ultimate torture for Google. They’ve got to be absolutely hating this decision in Mountain View.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz,” “Arline M.,” Gideon R.” for the heads up.]
I like the respect for privacy being reflected in this decision, but there is no way any search company can comply with something this vague:
“…This balance may however depend, in specific cases, on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data…”
This will require human beings to spend time make careful choices on millions of requests, verify requester identity, think about the context of the request, etc. It would take an army of people and they won’t be the least bit consistent given how difficult it will be to be fair with all the factors that will come up. This is a case of an impractical solution being legislated.
I don’t know what the answer is in terms of privacy vs. public access to public information, but this decision hasn’t found it yet.
Agreed. It’s essentially telling a search engine to not be a search engine.
Agreed. How would “Bill Smith #1”, the all around great guy, prove that a search for Bill Smith was a search for him, and not a search for “Bill Smith #2”, the axe murderer? How would a search engine, augmented by people or not, be able to make that distinction? Would any Bill Smith be able to halt the presentation of search results for all Bill Smiths?
Very curious position for the court, unless they propose a “Unique Human Identification Number” be assigned to every individual on earth. Perhaps a nice tattoo on the inner forearm, readable both visual and barcode?
‘666’ branded on our foreheads.
Crap regulation such as this demands $$$MONEY$$$ to pay for court time, and of course lawyers. WHO is going to pay for it? You and me? I think so.
Google hates this not because of the loss of data (they’ll still have the data, just won’t show it) but because it means they’ll need to employ people, not machines, to process these requests. They don’t have algorithms to evaluate if a request is valid or not.
If there’s one thing Google hates more than losing data it’s providing real customer service.
Exactly…I imagine Google dreads becoming too close to real, live people. Unlike the inhuman algorithm, human employees with human values could conceivably weaken Google’s core business of turning people into virtual chattel, to be auctioned at the block.
This is idiotic regulation, plain and simple and ugly.
There’s good regulation, like not destroying miracle planet Earth, our only home.
Then there’s BAD regulation, like bowing down to every ‘boohoo, my stuff is on the Internet and it HURTS’ sob story. Grow up and get a spine kiddies.
Does any one here know what “Fred Mertz” does for a living? Given the amount of heads up news he provides its rather possible that he stays at home looking for apple related news all day long on the internet. I wonder if he is on benefits/ social security !!
The mandate is absurd. Let’s say that John Smith wants an article about him to not show up in search results anymore….with a name that common and generic, how the hell is Google or any other search engine going to filter it out?
Simply put, they can’t.
Let’s say that some incorrect information on a website is removed but Google still caches and displays it?
To be clear, this decision is not about private or proprietary information. It is about information that is–and will remain–fully accessible to the public in court files, newspaper archives, and the like. This just means that when you want to find out if parliamentary candidate X or job applicant Y has a history of fraud accusations, you will have to search all the public records and all the newspaper archives individually, rather than by using a general search engine. Google can still collect and use all the information it likes, if it doesn’t show it in search results.
The “privacy advocates” are insisting that this isn’t censorship because no books are being burned or even removed from the bookshelves. “Free speech advocates” are pointing out that you needn’t remove the book if you can delete its entry from the catalogue.
The decision seems to contemplate that anyone who wants critical information deleted from their search results can petition their national privacy authority. That agency of faceless bureaucrats is supposed to balance the individual’s privacy interest against the public’s right to access public information. Since it is a “privacy agency” not a “free information agency,” I think we can assume that any doubt will be resolved in favor of the applicant and not the unrepresented public.
The implications of this ruling for the free flow of information are staggering.
Just heard an interview on BBC with one of the European bureaucrats in question. She emphasized that all the data on the Internet will still be there, but Google/Bing/whoever won’t be able to link to it if the “National Data Protection Agency” says. This will be determined in an administrative proceeding in which the petitioner can submit arguments. The potential users of the data will not have notice, and the search engine will have no reason to participate. Guess the likely outcome?
The rulings of one Data Agency will presumably be followed throughout the EU, so a politician in Country A may be able to suppress bad facts on a Wiki by filing in Country B. If Google/Bing can’t filter out results to just the EU, everybody in the world will lose access to the links.
I think it’s a really interesting debate and I share your concerns, but I am equally as suspicious of the motives of large corporations as I am of government. I am in favour of the data protection legislation we have in the EU because it’s very customer and citizen orientated. The principles are that people who handle your personal data should have a duty to protect it, that the information should be up to date and accurate, and that it should only be kept for as long as necessary. I agree with all three. And I think Google should have to comply. And I think if you complain to them and you’re not happy with their reply, then you should be able to go and have your case heard publicly. As more cases come along, the law develops. Clearly one of things to consider is whether the person is in the public eye, something the ruling alluded to. People are too apathetic about the data held and distributed about them between companies and authorities. A lot of Europeans, including me, hate the idea of being spied upon because our history tells us when powerful people do that it doesn’t end well. Americans are generally much more suspicious of their government than they are of corporations, but I think we should all be careful about both. After all, it just takes one government to change the law and everything Google knows about you the government could know. No doubt it will be part of “anti-terror” legislation. So better that everyone who collects data about us is subject to the same rules and that we have an open debate about who should keep what data and for how long.
The ruling only really means that you can complain to the Information Commissioner when you have already complained to Google (or any number of other companies) that searching for your name reveals the kind of information that could not be held under existing data protection legislation; that basically means out of date, inaccurate or irrelevant information. Currently under the law (which is EU wide but in the UK is the Data Protection Act) any ‘data handler’ must adhere to this. The ruling means Google must too. It’s hard to foresee whether this will open the floodgates or not, but I think it’s a good debate and something the law needs to start looking at.
Where did all the Google supporters come from?
Ever since Google changed from search engine to ad agency, their snooping of personal information has grown exponentially. This ruling primarily allows a user to have a say in what PERSONAL information about him is posted by 3rd parties. It WILL NOT affect news or public information, not business reporting, etc. The case was decided correctly — when a person wants Google to update or delete obsolete PERSONAL information, it should not be a big deal. Yes, it will cost Google some money, but it’s money they have and SHOULD be using to keep its search results up-to-date anyway. If anything, this is a huge benefit to Google because now users will tell Google what obsolete info needs to be culled. If Apple is smart, it will ask its users SPECIFICALLY what info it can record, and how it can be used, instead of just taking and scanning everything like Google does.
Right, just like newspaper reporters should ask their subjects what they can print and the police should ask criminals what evidence they can collect. Better yet, let’s empower the Data Protection Agency or Ministry of Truth to decide which publicly available information can be accessed by the public.
Democracy depends on the free exchange of information, even information that somebody doesn’t like. If you don’t like a book, sue the author, but don’t expect the indexer to leave awkward subjects out of the table of contents or the catalogue librarian to omit the book while it is actually still on the shelves.
To the extent it’s not an advert agency, Google is an indexer or cataloguer, not a data repository. Search results should reflect the actually available information on the Web, not what is left over after every government in the world has deleted what it finds objectionable.