Things that caught our eye

Of prostitutes, former presidents for motorsports (FIA) and forgetting in the internet

21 May, 2015   | by:

Max Mosley is is the former president of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA) and has been fighting Google for a couple of years now. He has been trying to sue Google for displaying unfortunate pictures of himself at – let’s call it –  a”sex party”. According to Anya Proops, on Panopticon, the question Mosley brought to court against Google

“is an important issue for those data subjects who garner significant public attention within the online environment, as was the case with Mr Mosley. The difficulty for such individuals is that online stories or comments about them can proliferate on the internet at such a rate that they cannot practicably achieve the online amnesia they crave.”

On the other hand, public figures like Mosley will always be in the spotlight and of public interest which is why they probably should refrain from taking part in orgies or alike, just saying…

Just last year, a court in Hamburg decided that Google was no longer allowed to display these unflattering and possibly damaging (to Mosley’s reputation) photos. And last week, Mosley finally settled with Google and everyone is hoping that this is the last we hear about Mosley v Google. It is definitely not the last time we will be discussing the European “Right to be Forgotten”!

 

 

, , , , ,

Things that caught our eye

Dear Google, tell us what you’re forgetting.

14 May, 2015   | by:

Today marks the one year anniversary of the Google Spain ruling on the ‘right to be forgotten’, or perhaps more accurately ‘the right to delist’. A cohort of 80 (internet) scholars and researchers led by Ellen P. Goodman and Julia Powles have penned an open letter to Google requesting the release of more specific data on their compliance with the ruling. The letter is published in the Guardian today.

They state:

Beyond anecdote, we know very little about what kind and quantity of information is being delisted from search results, what sources are being delisted and on what scale, what kinds of requests fail and in what proportion, and what are Google’s guidelines in striking the balance between individual privacy and freedom of expression interests.

In order to remedy this lack of information, the scholars present a 13 points long list in which they lay down the specifics of their request. Some of their points overlap with the guidelines published by the Article 29 Working Party on the Right to be Forgotten, though not all.

Read the letter to Google in full here.

Full disclosure: one of our own contributors (Stefan Kulk) is one of the undersigned.

,

Blog

Buying your way around ad blocking software. The story of Adblock Plus

4 Feb, 2015   | by:

According to a 2014 report by Adobe and Page Fair, nearly 150 million internet users browse the web using ad blocking software, a 70 percent increase compared to 2013. It is safe to say, that ad blocking software is on the rise, and poses a serious problem for internet and media companies who have built their businesses on advertising revenue. More…

, , , , ,

Things that caught our eye

Why can’t Google.com just forget too?

12 Nov, 2014   | by:

In his open letter to Google John M. Simpson, Privacy Project Director of Consumer Watchdog, is asking them to implement the EU’s “Right to be Forgotten” for US users on a voluntary basis too. His main argument why Google.com should do so, is that removals of links are not automated. Google has to strike a balance between the interests involved and seems to be doing so quite successfully, as Simpson states:

“I was heartened to see – based on Google’s own numbers – that you appear able to strike this balance in Europe and it does not appear to be an undue burden on your resources.”
The numbers seem pretty promising. So far, Google has received approx. 150’000 removal requests since the CJEU’s decision in May 2014 and has removed approx. 48% of the links in question, keeping the rest online. Thus, Simpson argues in his letter that striking a balance between the respective interests has proven to be easy enough for Google so why not provide the same “service” for US users.
Interesting enough there seems to be a slow movement going on in the US towards more privacy on the Internet. Let’s see if Europe and the US can find common grounds in the near future. Here’s the letter for further reading.

, , ,

Blog

Are you Google famous? A look into the search engine’s algorithm in a post-right to be forgotten world

2 Nov, 2014   | by:

Fame is often a subjective inquiry. A famous person to one person can be a stranger to another. Someone considered famous in one country can be an average citizen in another. But Google, while implementing the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) ruling in Google, Inc. v. Mario Costeja González regarding the right to be forgotten, has attempted to make an objective determination of who the public considers famous. More…

, , , , , , ,

Things that caught our eye

Remembering and Forgetting in the Digital Age: Are Machines taking over those tasks for us?

6 Oct, 2014   | by:

Over the past year and a bit I’ve been looking at how the digitalization of information and – well – many other things are affecting how we, companies or the government remember and forget things and how law should react to this in order to ensure the right amount of information is remembered respectively forgotten. Not an easy task, as many different perspectives and interests are involved. More…

, , , ,

Blog

How should/do Google & Co. carry out the “Right to be Forgotten”?

28 Sep, 2014   | by:

The CJEU’s decision in the Case of Google Spain, Google v. AEPD has caused a lot of discussion around the globe (See both Anna’s and Stefan’s blog about the decision). Search Engines, especially Google, have called for guidance on how to decide whether information connected to a person’s name is

inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes of the processing at issue carried out by the operator of the search engines”

and thus has to be deleted. More…

, , ,

Blog

Google Spain v. AEPD: About the ‘right to be forgotten’ and the forgotten right of freedom of expression

15 May, 2014   | by:

 

On 13 May the CJEU accepted a partial ‘right to be forgotten’ in the Case of Google Spain, Google v. AEPDWhat is remarkable about this ruling, is the extent of privacy protection adopted.

The Facts of the Case

Some 16 years ago Mario Costeja González was going through a rough patch in his life and was unable to pay his social security debts. As a result, his house was sold via public auction. This auction was announced in a newspaper.  At a later date an electronic version of the newspaper was made available online by its publisher. Google indexed the link and if you ‘googled’ the name of Mr. González a link to the newspaper article showed up in the search results. More…

, , , , , ,