EU court rules Google must remove personal data from search results on request


comments

If you've ever Googled yourself, you may have been surprised just how much information is available at the click of a button.

But in a landmark ruling, a court in Europe has now made it possible for people to request Google to remove any of these search results that contain private, or sensitive data.

The search engine is legally obliged to comply, unless there are particular reasons not to, such as the result and its data is in the public interest.

In a landmark ruling, a European court has made it possible for people to ask Google, stock image pictured, to remove any search results that contain private, or sensitive data. The search engine is legally obliged to comply, unless there are particular reasons not to, such as the result and its data is in the public interest

In a landmark ruling, a European court has made it possible for people to ask Google, stock image pictured, to remove any search results that contain private, or sensitive data. The search engine is legally obliged to comply, unless there are particular reasons not to, such as the result and its data is in the public interest

THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

Under the European Data Protection Regulation, Article 17 includes the 'right to be forgotten and to erasure'.

Under Article 17, people who are mentioned in the data have the right to 'obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data relating to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data.'

This particularly relates to data about the person when they were a child, when the data is no longer relevant or necessary for the purpose it was collected, the person who owns the content withdraws their consent, the storage period has expired, or if it was gathered illegally. 

The EU defines 'data controllers' as 'people or bodies that collect and manage personal data.'

The EU General Data Protection Regulation means any data controller who has been asked to remove data must 'take all reasonable steps, including technical measures' to remove it.

If a data controller does not take these steps they can be heavily fined.

It is an important test of the 'right to be forgotten' rule, designed to give people more control over their private data, and what companies hold about them.

The case comes after Spaniard Mario Costeja complained to a Spanish data protection agency that an auction note about his repossessed home infringed his privacy.

When his name was Googled, it threw up references to an advertisement for a property auction relating to an unpaid Social Welfare debt.

 

Costeja and the agency argued that the debt had long been settled and the reference should be removed.

The ad had originally appeared in a Spanish newspaper and was indexed by Google when the newspaper digitised its archive.

The case was referred to the European court by Spain's appeal court, the Audiencia Nacional, which has fielded 200 such complaints.

Google argued that it doesn't control personal data, it just offers links to information already freely and legally available on the internet.

It also argued that it should not be forced to play the role of censor, especially when it offers links to information that was legally published.

The ruling was made by the European Union Court of Justice, pictured. It comes after a Spanish man complained an online auction note about his repossessed home infringed his privacy. Google told MailOnline it is 'disappointed' by the ruling and argued it should not be a censor for data held on websites in its index

The ruling was made by the European Union Court of Justice, pictured. It comes after a Spanish man complained an online auction note about his repossessed home infringed his privacy. Google told MailOnline it is 'disappointed' by the ruling and argued it should not be a censor for data held on websites in its index

PREVIOUS STATMENT MADE BY THE EU'S ADVOCATE GENERAL

In June 2013, an adviser to EU's highest court said that Google should not have to remove personal information from its search results, even if that information is damaging to a person's reputation.

The statement was made by by Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen and was seen as a major blow against the 'right to be forgotten' campaign. 

Jääskinen said: 'Requesting search engine service providers to suppress legitimate and legal information that has entered the public domain would entail an interference with the freedom of expression.

'Search engine service providers are not responsible, on the basis of the data protection directive, for personal data appearing on web pages they process.'

But, in an advisory judgment stemming from the Spanish case, the ECJ said Google and other search engines do have control of individuals' private information, given that they sometimes compile and present links to it in a systematic way.

The court found that under European law, individuals have a right to control over their private data, especially if they are not public figures.

Therefore, if they want irrelevant or wrong personal information about themselves 'forgotten' from search engine results, they have the right to request it - even if the information was legally published.

People 'may address such a request directly to the operator of the search engine, which must then duly examine its merits,' the ruling said.

Whether or not the request should be granted will depend 'on the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and on the interest of the public in having that information, an interest which may vary,' it continued.

Google must remove links to pages containing the information from results 'unless there are particular reasons, such as the role played by the data subject in public life, justifying a preponderant interest of the public in having access to the information when such a search is made,' the court said.

Google told MailOnline: This is a disappointing ruling for search engines and online publishers in general.

'We are very surprised that it differs so dramatically from the Advocate General's opinion and the warnings and consequences that he spelled out. We now need to take time to analyse the implications.'


 



IFTTT

Put the internet to work for you.

Turn off or edit this Recipe

0 comments:

Post a Comment