European law around the “right to be forgotten” is pretty zany to start with. The idea is that people should be able to petition to have annoying, inconvenient, or possibly misleading information taken down off the Internet — or, in many cases, removed from search engines like Google.
For example, X is convicted of a crime, which is covered by the news media, and those articles get linked to by Google. Later, the conviction is overturned. That may generate less linkage than the original arrest, trial, and conviction — such things usually do. Now X discovers that when people Google their name, the top results are the trial and conviction, not the overturning. So X sues to have Google “forget” about the trial and conviction, remove the links to those articles, so that we can pretend it never happened. The information is “outdated” or “irrelevant,” so X should be able to ask to take it down.
That’s a relatively straightforward case, but the one that Google just lost is even dodgier. The judge basically ruled that, sure, the conviction happened, but it was a while ago, and it isn’t likely to happen again, and that the plaintiff has shown remorse … so those Internet links to news articles about the conviction should be taken down, too.
Explaining his decision, the judge said … NT2 had shown remorse. He also took into account the submission that NT2’s conviction did not concern actions taken by him in relation to “consumers, customers or investors”, but rather in relation to the invasion of privacy of third parties. “There is not [a] plausible suggestion … that there is a risk that this wrongdoing will be repeated by the claimant. The information is of scant if any apparent relevance to any business activities that he seems likely to engage in,” the judge added.
He said his key conclusion in relation to NT2’s claim was that “the crime and punishment information has become out of date, irrelevant and of no sufficient legitimate interest to users of Google search to justify its continued availability”.
It’s not that what happened was legally revised. Google just has to censor the record to pretend it never happened. Even though it did.
This is not just more dangerous (letting the government decide what picture of historical reality is in the best interests of society and individuals, because how could that possibly ever be abused), but the judge’s guidelines in the ruling are so vague and subjective, that I don’t see how Google (or anyone else) could possibly replicate them.
I understand Europeans’ focus on privacy (at least from business and other citizens; not so much from their governments), but it really strikes me that what’s being put forward here is not privacy, but something Orwellian.
Google loses landmark ‘right to be forgotten’ case | Technology | The Guardian
View on Google+
