Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy EU Google The Courts Your Rights Online

EU Court of Justice Paves Way For "Right To Be Forgotten" Online 199

Posted by timothy
from the youthful-indiscretions dept.
Mark.JUK (1222360) writes "The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has today ruled that Google, Bing and others, acting as internet search engine operators, are responsible for the processing that they carry out of personal data which appears on web pages published by third parties. As a result any searches made on the basis of a person's name that returns links/descriptions for web pages containing information on the person in question can, upon request by the related individual, be removed. The decision supports calls for a so-called 'right to be forgotten' by Internet privacy advocates, which ironically the European Commission are already working to implement via new legislation. Google failed to argue that such a decision would be unfair because the information was already legally in the public domain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Court of Justice Paves Way For "Right To Be Forgotten" Online

Comments Filter:
  • Paris may forget you cheri, but marketers never will.

  • by davecb (6526) <davec-b@rogers.com> on Tuesday May 13, 2014 @07:54AM (#46988451) Homepage Journal
    Courts are based on both sides arguing their case: Google needs to gain standing and appeal.
  • by Connie_Lingus (317691) on Tuesday May 13, 2014 @07:54AM (#46988453) Homepage

    so by the wave of legislator's arms, all information about us online is simply going to disappear?

    i call shenanigans.

    i mean really...do these people surf the same web as i do?

  • Re:Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fafaforza (248976) on Tuesday May 13, 2014 @08:45AM (#46988871)

    Does Lexis-Nexis get sued because they index libelous articles?

  • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday May 13, 2014 @08:50AM (#46988911)

    No, not correct. It's about personal data. This is already something that's well defined and well understood.

    Your argument amounts to the idea that nothing should ever be private, which is an even more stupid idea.

  • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday May 13, 2014 @09:14AM (#46989105)

    Slashdot has always supported the idea that information wants to be free, but it's also supported the idea that privacy matters.

    It's also true that not all information should be free, most people don't want their password, debit card pin, or private conversations to be "free".

    I mean, what is your argument, that everything the NSA and GCHQ did is fine, and of course they should be able to follow your every conversation, because of course, information wants to be free? I mean why shouldn't GCHQ and the NSA hold all your information, information wants to be free, it wants them to know everything about us!

    Should Slashdot remove Anonymous Coward and make everyone post with their real names, because we should all get to know who exactly they are, because information wants to be free? Maybe you should have to publicly post your address and telephone number and e-mail and workplace details and salary too. Are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and make a start?

    Yes information wants to be free, except when we're talking about privacy, and privacy concerns should trump that.

  • by Raenex (947668) on Tuesday May 13, 2014 @11:14AM (#46990431)

    Newspapers have long been deemed to be public record, and so of course it shouldn't be censored. Public record can comfortably sit behind the public interest defence. But Google is a business that makes money providing services based on public record, that does not in itself make it public record, and so it becomes difficult for it to make a case for public interest - it's tried to make this case and failed, hence the ruling.

    This argument is absurd. Newspapers (when not state run) are also commercial interests. One entity publishes things in the public record, and another makes those things searchable. To argue that what Google does is so different and doesn't deserve protection is preposterous, even more so to claim that there isn't censorship going on.

"Consider a spherical bear, in simple harmonic motion..." -- Professor in the UCB physics department

Working...