Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Privacy Your Rights Online

No "Right To Be Forgotten," Says EU Advocate General 116

Posted by timothy
from the they'll-remember-you-said-that dept.
DW100 writes "A ruling this morning from the European Court of Justice has said that Google does not have to delete personal data from its search index, in a case that could have huge ramifications for web privacy and the so-called 'right to be forgotten.'" From the article: EU Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen "said Google and other search engines are not subject to privacy requirements under current European data protection law. 'Search engine service providers are not responsible, on the basis of the Data Protection Directive, for personal data appearing on web pages they process,' he said in his official ruling, published by the court. He went on to explain that based on current laws citizens do not have a right to be removed from search indexes within the framework of the Data Protection Directive. 'The Directive does not establish a general "right to be forgotten." Such a right cannot therefore be invoked against search engine service providers on the basis of the Directive,' he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No "Right To Be Forgotten," Says EU Advocate General

Comments Filter:
  • Explanaition (Score:5, Informative)

    by André Rebentisch (2962925) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @09:43AM (#44099951)
    The opinion of the Advocate General is a preliminary document, a recommendationn, not a ruling of the Court. A recommendation to the European Court that is often followed by the Court. Legal grounds is the current EU directive, a directive that is implemented in national laws and provides a level of minimum harmonisation across EU member states. There may be other legal grounds. Currently the entire EU data protection legislative framework is under reform.
  • by bickerdyke (670000) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @09:59AM (#44100089)

    Both wrong.

    You should make sure that you don't appear in a newspaper article. Even if there is something newsworthy.

    The original lawsuit was about an old newspaperarticle about a some Chapter 11 stuff still turning up when you searched for a name.

  • by mindwhip (894744) on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @10:45AM (#44100487)

    True, which is why this case isn't about "Right to be forgotten" which is related to the closure of your personal online accounts and not any data published and subsequently indexed by a third party.

    The obligation that Google, news sites etc. does have however under various EU data protection laws is that any information that they hold about you must be accurate and corrected if found not to be. Also they can not to publish information that could be otherwise considered private and not in public knowledge. Generally (with some exceptions) they also have to provide you with any personal information they hold about you as an individual, and can charge a reasonable fee for providing such information.

    Unfortunately for the individual involved the information published and indexed is correct and is publicly available due to court proceedings and being published in a newspaper etc. so they have no obligation to remove it or change it in any way.

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <(mojo) (at) (world3.net)> on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @12:12PM (#44101547) Homepage

    No, that's absolutely not what it means. The right to be forgotten only applies to data you created yourself, not what other people wrote about you.

    The submitter of this article is confused and now so are you. The issue here has nothing to do with the right to be forgotten. In this case German law says that convictions should not be mentioned in the press once they are "spent", which most of the time means you did your time or paid your fine. Of course anyone could go to the library and scan back through old editions of newspapers on microfiche, but it was considered too much of a hassle to be an issue.

    Google now makes finding old newspaper articles extremely easy, and even offers snippets of them or suggestions based on their content. That was the issue here, nothing to do with the right to be forgotten.

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.

Working...