A hundred thousand euro fine on Google because when a user recognizes the so-called right to be forgotten does not disindicizza the subject content of the request also on “editions” extra-European the search engine (such as google.com, ed ) in relation to requests from different countries than that from which the oblivion has been claimed. This was established by the CNIL – The Guarantor for the French privacy – with a measure of last March 10, published yesterday on its corporate website.
this is the last episode of the battle against the collective memory online or defense of the so-called right to ‘forgetfulness – depending on the point of view of each – began in May 2014 with the now famous decision of the Court of Justice ruled that it’s up to the search engines, on simple request of the interested parties, go to disindicizzazione of web pages containing them data and in relation to which non-indexing there is an overriding public interest.
The giant search engine has quickly put line, implementing an objectively rapid and effective disindicizzazione system, so far, used to convey, in Europe, over 400 thousand requests, related to more than 1 million and 400 thousand web pages, accepted in over 42% of cases. In less than two years, then, over 600,000 content and / or web pages have become substantially unreachable online or, at least, have been excluded from access through the most used search engine in the world.
But, since the beginning of the confrontation and clash with the European authorities, Google , while declaring themselves willing to comply with a decision that has never made any secret of not sharing in the substance, it is always rejected to accept the idea that by virtue of that decision, a disindicizzato content in Europe, it proves disindicizzato even outside the borders of Europe. And so, beginning when granted the request of a user’s forgetfulness, it disindicizzava their contents only on all its “editions” European (google.it, google.fr, google.uk etc.). The result was that those who were to launch a search for the name and surname of the person who had asked for and obtained the disindicizzazione version, for example, google.com search engine continued to run into the “natural” search results that include the excised link from the search results returned by the “editions” of the European Google.
This limitation, however, did not like, from the beginning to the guarantors for European Policy – French CNIL in the head – that they had failed to report Big G, which could and should do more to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice .
a few months ago, the turning point or the one that seemed almost final. Google has, in fact, announced that it plans to start disindicizzare the subject of right to oblivion content also on their “international editions” but always and only in relation to questions launched by the country of origin of oblivion request.
the current situation is summarized effectively here in the infographic published by its French guarantor for privacy that the uses to highlight its “weakness” in terms of effective guarantee for the privacy of European citizens.
Yesterday, then, the last episode. Google needs to do more, said the French guarantor, condemning Big G to one hundred thousand euro fine. But Mountanview have already said they do not intend to bow to the request of the French Guarantor and wield the measure. The question is extraordinarily complicated and looks like a classic game of “blanket too short” in which it is impossible to simultaneously satisfy the different interests and rights on the table.
What appears certain is that if you recognize the principle dear to the CNIL as a result of which if Google receives a request for oblivion in compliance with European laws and the decision of the Court of Justice of the European union, the measure of freedom information in any other extra-European country ends up being inexorably conditioning and compressed by our rules.
one wonders what would we say to Europeans if, tomorrow, any less democratic State of our imposed Google to disindicizzare – with overall effect – some search results which it considers contrary to the dictator or tyrant round. Grideremmo probably – and rightly so – to the scandal and the censorship .
In this case, of course, the disindicizzazione is – or should be – request to protect a fundamental human right such as privacy and not by virtue of censorea action but, at least from a method profile, it does not change : a our country would end up imposing its rules right or not right to the whole world in a matter as the circulation of ideas and information in which the feelings and points of view are very different.
If Big G wanted to do another small step , perhaps what one could assume is the disindicizzazione the object of oblivion demand content on all global issues, for all requests coming from any European country and beyond from the one from which it was asked oblivion.
But it is always a matter to be handled with care because in the game, if one side is the right to privacy of each of us, the other is the right to information and to the history and it is difficult to predict what impact it will produce in the coming years the operation of geographical selective amnesia in place as a result of which this that citizens of the world can learn about each other is different depending on the location in which they live or the questions that are to Google.
receive and publish the following response
We’ve worked hard to implement the provisions of the judgment on the right to be forgotten in a careful and comprehensive in Europe and will continue to do so. However, as a matter of principle, we disagree with the idea that the CNIL has the authority to control the content that is accessible to people outside of France, and will appeal this decision.
Statement spokesman for Google
No comments:
Post a Comment