Google shows good faith but those wanting to be forgotten must wait 

Google search removal request displayed on the screen of a smartphone.

In announcing its willingness to implement the EU court of justice decision on the “right to be forgotten”, Google is making the best of a bad job. Although the ruling delivered in Luxembourg on 13 May left it with little alternative, Google has laid claim to the moral high ground by showing its willingness to respect the rule of law.

But, as the company candidly admitted on the web form it has now published for users, Google is still “working to finalise its implementation of removal requests under European data protection laws”. The form was only an “initial effort” and Google would be working with national data protection authorities to refine its approach “over the coming months”.

So if you don’t want the world to know about your misspent youth may have to wait a little longer. Even then, there’s no guarantee that the slate will be wiped clean. For one thing, you won’t be able to delete the original web page in which information about you appears — the blog, the newspaper story, the embarrassing selfie.

At best, all you’ll be able to have removed is the link to that page generated by a Google search against your name. The page you may want to hide may still be found by using different search terms, by using a newspaper’s own search facility, or by using a search engine based outside the EU — which may include google.com itself.

Secondly, the court of justice did not ban all data processing relating to individuals. In line with the data protection directive, its ruling applies only to data which is inadequate, irrelevant or excessive; not kept up to date; or kept for longer than necessary. And there is an important exception if “for particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life … the interference with his fundamental rights is justified by the preponderant interest of the general public in having … access to the information in question”.

Google could have made life easier for itself by acceding to all take-down requests. Instead, it seems to be working on a fairly narrow interpretation of the EU judgment. Individuals will have to say why they think the information about them is “irrelevant, outdated or otherwise inappropriate”. Google staff will then consider “whether there’s a public interest in the information—for example, information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials”.

In referring to financial scams, Google seems to have in mind perpetrators rather than victims. Even so, Google might be able to argue that it was in the public interest for a high-profile victim to be named. And it can certainly argue that the “role played in public life” by criminals, dodgy public servants or professionals in trouble with their regulators justifies continued publication of links to their reported wrongdoing. So the criminals who have already asked Google to forget about their convictions are likely to be disappointed.

The EU judgment, by the grand chamber of the court of justice, is final and binding across Europe. Even so, it takes the form of answers to questions put to it by a court in Spain. There may be scope for further argument on the right to freedom of expression when the Spanish court applies the judgment to the claim it has been considering. That was brought by a man who complained that anyone searching his name on Google would find that his house had been put up for auction in 1998 to pay off his social security debts.

Anyone who has heard of Mario Costeja González will now know that the case against him has been resolved. In that sense, his legal action has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. On the other hand, the role he now plays in “public life” means he will never be forgotten — however much Google might wish it had never heard of him.

 

Source: theguardian

Leave a Comment


Broker Cyprus TopFX