Germany Considers Setting Up A Special Court To Determine Who Can Demand To Have Embarassing Histories Deleted From Google
from the because-that-will-end-well dept
We recently wrote about a ridiculous decision in the EU Court of Justice, which accepted the bizarre concept of a "right to be forgotten" and ordered that Google had to delete links to old news stories about Mario Costeja Gonzalez even though those news stories could stay online. And, of course, this has set off a frenzy of folks seeking to have their embarrassing histories deleted, because, really, if you had an embarrassing public history, why wouldn't you?And, within weeks, it's already reached the point that Germany is looking into setting up a special court to review such cases and determine what embarrassing histories Google will need to delete, and which embarrassing histories you'll need to learn to live with people finding on Google. Because... this is the ridiculous world we now live in (for those of you in Europe for now). At the very least, to some extent this can be seen as marginally positive. The idea behind creating this is to actually decrease the impact of the ruling, and to limit the ability for people to delete their histories. But, just the fact that you might need to set up a special court for this sounds insane.
Following a European Union court decision this month granting consumers the “right to be forgotten,” the Interior Ministry in Berlin would seek to establish “dispute-settlement mechanisms” for consumers who file so-called take-down requests. If search providers introduce automatic deletion, public information would be at risk, the ministry said.It seems some folks in Berlin recognize that public information might be at risk over this situation, but it's still troubling that a court gets to decide what public information is "legitimate" and which is not. And that, really, is the problem with all of this. While defenders of the "right to be forgotten" and the EUCJ decision keep referring to it as a "privacy" right, it is no such thing. If it was about private information, they'd have a point. But it's not. It's about public information.
“Politicians, prominent figures and other persons who are reported about in public would be able to hide or even delete reports they find unpleasant,” it said in a statement. The ministry suggested that the removal of information shouldn’t be left to company algorithms.
It is silly to argue that public information should be forced to be made private after a certain point, and even more ridiculous to then put the burden on a third party to make that public information private. At the very least, having a special court slightly limits that burden, but just the fact that such a court would even be thought necessary should show how ridiculous and dangerous the original ruling is for public discourse.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: courts, germany, right to be forgotten, search engines
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Streisand Memorial court soon to be accepting filings'
Because unless all records involving the court are sealed, simply checking them will give people a fairly good idea of who is trying to wipe their past and any evidence of it, leading to even more interest, and more scrutiny, where there otherwise wouldn't have been any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Streisand Memorial court soon to be accepting filings'
I wonder if they would then apply to have the court documents removed from the newly create search engine (kind of like the recursive DMCA/Chilling effects requests).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Next question: is this only for the search engine's main page or also for searching through their APIs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think that they were invited to the party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh goody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little honesty about myself. 20 years ago I used drugs and ended up with 3 misdemeanors on my record. I have been clean ever since. I have had to disclose them on every job application since then because any employer could do a background check in public records and find out. I checked with a lawyer about having them expunged and he said that in these days that would do little good. Even though he could likely get them sealed in all government records there are many private companies that employers use that have scooped up past public records and there is no way to remove them. If you Google my name this doesn't appear but many ads will show up from these private companies offering background checks on anyone for a price.
Even if there were Google links about my convictions and I could have them removed there is no way my record could be "forgotten".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody in the future will know where the law came from???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What this says is
Bing, yahoo, etc... are so off the mark, they don't even appear to exist to the average political motivated sleazebag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passive/Agressive response?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A question about showing links to private material
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
noindex
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Google and Microsoft aren't making those decisions in the first place. They do not have any control over what is or is not available on the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]