Google Victory In German Top Court Over Right To Be Forgotten (dw.com) 23
Germany's top court handed down its first ruling since the EU's GDPR laws went into effect in mid-2018. The court "sided with Google and rejected requests to wipe entries from search results," reports German public broadcaster DW (in an article shared by long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo):
The cases hinged on whether the right to be forgotten outweighed the public's right to know...
In the first case, a former managing director of a charity had demanded Google remove links to certain news articles that appeared in searches of his name. The articles from 2011 reported that the charity was in financial trouble and that the manager had called in sick. He later argued in court that information on his personal health issues should not be divulged to the public years later. The court ruled that whether links to critical articles have to be removed from the search list always depends on a comprehensive consideration of fundamental rights in the individual case.
A second case was referred to the European Court of Justice. It concerned two leaders of a financial services company that sought to have links to negative reports about their investment model removed. The couple had argued that the US-based websites, which came up in the searches for their names, were full of fake news and sought to market other financial services providers.
This is the first ruling by Germany's top court since the EU's general data protection regulation came into effect in 2018. It gives EU citizens extensive rights to demand corporations immediately delete personal data.
In the first case, a former managing director of a charity had demanded Google remove links to certain news articles that appeared in searches of his name. The articles from 2011 reported that the charity was in financial trouble and that the manager had called in sick. He later argued in court that information on his personal health issues should not be divulged to the public years later. The court ruled that whether links to critical articles have to be removed from the search list always depends on a comprehensive consideration of fundamental rights in the individual case.
A second case was referred to the European Court of Justice. It concerned two leaders of a financial services company that sought to have links to negative reports about their investment model removed. The couple had argued that the US-based websites, which came up in the searches for their names, were full of fake news and sought to market other financial services providers.
This is the first ruling by Germany's top court since the EU's general data protection regulation came into effect in 2018. It gives EU citizens extensive rights to demand corporations immediately delete personal data.
This is not the US, mind you. (Score:3, Informative)
Court decisions have no infuence on future court decisions, and do not set a precedent.
This is business as usual. Privacy is decided on a case by case basis.
Just like freedom of the press had to be weighed against our right to not be recorded without permission (even in public) for a long time.
Non-binding precedent is precedent (Score:5, Informative)
According to this Standford law article, while non-binding, "precedents play a major role in the practice of the German courts".
https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/c... [stanford.edu]
In fact, while US case law is pretty much a random pile of paper, Germany organizes theirs to match the statues, so for any German statute section a judge or attorney can turn to the same section number in the Leitsatze to easily see all of the precedent related to that section.
Re:This is not the US, mind you. (Score:4, Interesting)
This case went before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), which is the highest court for civil and criminal law in Germany, and of which there's only the one in Karlsruhe. It's not likely that one of the state courts is not going to use this case as a strong guideline on how to proceed with very similar cases.
The only court that could effectively overturn this would be the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court), of which also happens to be only one and it's also in Karlsruhe.
But by now it must have been already pretty expensive for that dirt bag trying to weasel out of the mess he created himself by abusing the GDPR. So I'm not sure he's going to risk going to take it up another 'instance'. But how knows. We'll have to see.
Re: (Score:2)
"Right to be forgotten" is an abomination (Score:4, Insightful)
the whole concept is founded on the premise that it should be acceptable to alter what people today are allowed to easily know about the past just because it happens to hurt someone's feelings.
We don't "deserve" to be forgiven for any past mistake, no matter how long ago it was. If it was earned, we would have no reason to be grateful for it, and thereby have that much less incentive to avoid repeating the mistake. I am certainly allowed to hope that people forgive me for stupid shit I've done in the past, but I know I don't have any right to it. I can only live my life the best that I can regardless of circumstance, and be willing to forgive others myself.
Re:"Right to be forgotten" is an abomination (Score:5, Informative)
the whole concept is founded on the premise that it should be acceptable to alter what people today are allowed to easily know about the past just because it happens to hurt someone's feelings.
No. The premise is that certain information about people should not be used to generate profit for Google because disseminating that information has a disproportionately negative effect on them.
In many countries, for example, some crimes are considered "spent" after some time and don't have to be disclosed to employers, banks, insurance companies and the like. The idea is that once a person has served their punishment they should have the opportunity to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, rather than having everything carry a de facto life sentence.
The right to privacy in Europe includes the right not to have such information disclosed by for-profit businesses looking to make a few Euros, or in Google's case a few cents serving up ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the right doesn't extend to, say, having newspapers scrub their archives. It only covers companies that offer information about individuals, such as credit reference agencies, background check agencies, and search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense, since newspapers don't offer information about people, or have searchable archives.
Rather than trying to come up with some logical reason for the "right", you should really call it what it is: the "right to make Google give incomplete information about people". It may be a good right; I don't know. It just sounds a bit less high and mighty when called by its real name. Though it's kinda cool having a company named in an individual right!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just Google, any company which offers similar services. I'm not sure if it has been tested but you might be able to have search results from a newspaper's search engine removed as well, but I don't think people generally bother because e.g. employers don't go around doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
The main application of the "right to be forgotten" is not public information, but customer data.
A company has the right to keep personal data only as long as there is a business reason. Once the business reason is not there anymore (e.g. there is no more business relation) the company has to delete the personal data.
That it's been applied so broadly is IMHO incorrect, since the GDPR itself clearly states that erasure can be prevented in case of exercising the right of freedom of expression and information [gdpr.eu]
Re: (Score:2)
The main application of the "right to be forgotten" is not public information, but customer data.
A company has the right to keep personal data only as long as there is a business reason. Once the business reason is not there anymore (e.g. there is no more business relation) the company has to delete the personal data.
I'm confused: why does this explain why the "right to be forgotten" applies to Google but not to newspapers? Or are you confusing the RTBF and the GDPR? They're rather different, in theory and in implementation.
Re: (Score:2)
Art. 17 GDPR
Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)
Newspapers likely have an easier time to claim they can be exempt under Art. 17.3.a or 17.3.d:
(a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;
(d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing;
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see now the mixup is in the title of the page itself.
Amazing how a company claiming to be specialized in data protection regulation (the company behind gdpr-info.eu) can mix two entirely different concepts.
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten#Current_legal_frameworks) the Right to be Forgotten was included in an early draft of what eventually became the GDPR, but it is not in the final version
Re: (Score:2)
The company is not mixing anything, the text comes 1-1 from the official EU legislation [europa.eu]. That company merely provides a mirror of the official legislation, which explicitly names article 17 "Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)".