OPD 15 May 2014
Edited by Gillian Palmer
Internet with Amnesia
Published in die Zeit
(Germany) on 15 May 2014
by Stefan Schmitt (link to original)
(Germany) on 15 May 2014
by Stefan Schmitt (link to original)
Translated from
by Erica Wilfong Boxheimer.
Edited by .
All of a sudden we have the “right to be forgotten.” At least, for the Spaniard who wouldn’t tolerate being reminded of a bad memory each time he Googled his name: a newspaper article from 1998 announcing the forced auction of his house. Yet 16 years later, Google’s world memory linked the debt from back then with the man’s name. The plaintiff should not have to put up with that, states the European Court of Justice.
This decision is as surprising as it is far-reaching. Not only because the judge did not follow the advocate general in his verdict (as they mostly do), but also because Google is no longer considered a mere transmitter of the information in question, but as its processor (and is thus responsible). And finally, because it has always been said that a “right to be forgotten” would be merely an academic’s dream, a utopian data protection requirement that had no chance of implementation (because Internet companies have the upper hand and know how to avoid that).
This law has become a reality
Before the European Court of Justice, the fundamental virtue of law has prevailed, the principle of proportionality. It is a proportional deliberation, for example, that a person does not have to atone for a misstep for the rest of his life. Just like a private bankruptcy, being allowed to start again after six years of good, debt-free conduct; or like a prisoner has the right to social rehabilitation. Likewise, digital trails should not stick to us forever.
No one can object to that, right?
Hours after the verdict was announced, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales asked via Twitter, “When will a European Court demand that Wikipedia censor an article with truthful information because an individual doesn't like it?”
Wales is not a Google junior, nor a start-up fantasticatillionaire. There’s no reason to doubt his concerns regarding free speech and freedom of expression, just as one can believe the European Advocate General, Niilo Jääskinen, in his concern for the freedom of access to information. He appealed to the ECJ judge to “avoid undue and excessive legal consequences”* — those consequences, which would have a right to be forgotten after his fear.
It is conceivable in principle that the right will be misused to eliminate information from world memory that belonged there for public interest.
At this time, Google commented only that they first wanted to analyze the judgment precisely. Whether, and how, the company will set up a function for desiring to be forgotten is open. In a distantly related problem on YouTube, its video platform, Google organized a content ID system to identify and automatically delete videos because of copyright infringement. That makes the record companies happy; they don’t want to provide free soundtracks to home videos. But, it also resulted in the automatic, and unwarranted, blocking of a NASA video from the rover Curiosity landing on Mars.
That provoked a lot of ridicule and serious criticism of automated systems, like content ID, that they are investigators, prosecutors, and judges all in one — the opposite of proportionality and consideration.
Whether the ruling will lead to such amnesia, at Google as well, is uncertain. They can hopefully prevent it. Deciding which sorting practice to establish is not about Google alone; the judges think about a public appeal body for the dispute. That’s clever because it will slow down the process — and serve the balance.
It’s already clear that citizens’ rights have been strengthened with the right to be forgotten by the seemingly all-powerful corporation. If this happens to tell the success story of how the stolid countries have tamed Internet companies, then you will refer to the Luxembourg verdict as a beginning.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
This decision is as surprising as it is far-reaching. Not only because the judge did not follow the advocate general in his verdict (as they mostly do), but also because Google is no longer considered a mere transmitter of the information in question, but as its processor (and is thus responsible). And finally, because it has always been said that a “right to be forgotten” would be merely an academic’s dream, a utopian data protection requirement that had no chance of implementation (because Internet companies have the upper hand and know how to avoid that).
This law has become a reality
Before the European Court of Justice, the fundamental virtue of law has prevailed, the principle of proportionality. It is a proportional deliberation, for example, that a person does not have to atone for a misstep for the rest of his life. Just like a private bankruptcy, being allowed to start again after six years of good, debt-free conduct; or like a prisoner has the right to social rehabilitation. Likewise, digital trails should not stick to us forever.
No one can object to that, right?
Hours after the verdict was announced, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales asked via Twitter, “When will a European Court demand that Wikipedia censor an article with truthful information because an individual doesn't like it?”
Wales is not a Google junior, nor a start-up fantasticatillionaire. There’s no reason to doubt his concerns regarding free speech and freedom of expression, just as one can believe the European Advocate General, Niilo Jääskinen, in his concern for the freedom of access to information. He appealed to the ECJ judge to “avoid undue and excessive legal consequences”* — those consequences, which would have a right to be forgotten after his fear.
It is conceivable in principle that the right will be misused to eliminate information from world memory that belonged there for public interest.
At this time, Google commented only that they first wanted to analyze the judgment precisely. Whether, and how, the company will set up a function for desiring to be forgotten is open. In a distantly related problem on YouTube, its video platform, Google organized a content ID system to identify and automatically delete videos because of copyright infringement. That makes the record companies happy; they don’t want to provide free soundtracks to home videos. But, it also resulted in the automatic, and unwarranted, blocking of a NASA video from the rover Curiosity landing on Mars.
That provoked a lot of ridicule and serious criticism of automated systems, like content ID, that they are investigators, prosecutors, and judges all in one — the opposite of proportionality and consideration.
Whether the ruling will lead to such amnesia, at Google as well, is uncertain. They can hopefully prevent it. Deciding which sorting practice to establish is not about Google alone; the judges think about a public appeal body for the dispute. That’s clever because it will slow down the process — and serve the balance.
It’s already clear that citizens’ rights have been strengthened with the right to be forgotten by the seemingly all-powerful corporation. If this happens to tell the success story of how the stolid countries have tamed Internet companies, then you will refer to the Luxembourg verdict as a beginning.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Contrary to Common Sense")
