买哪种彩票更容易中奖

The Right to Be Forgotten (Google v. Spain)

Summary

in google v. spain, the european court of justice ruled that the european citizens have a right to request that commercial search firms, such as google, that gather personal information for profit should remove links to private information when asked, provided the information is no longer relevant. the court did not say newspapers should remove articles. the court found that the fundamental right to privacy is greater than the economic interest of the commercial firm and, in some circumstances, the public interest interest in access to information. the european court affirmed the judgment of the spanish data protection agency which upheld press freedoms and rejected a request to have the article concerning personal bankruptcy removed from the web site of the press organization.

EPIC Resources

  • , YouTube.
  • Marc Rotenberg, Op-Ed, , USA Today, Jan. 22, 2015.
  • Marc Rotenberg, , The Diane Rehm Show, National Public Radio, Jan. 5, 2015.
  • John Tran, Panelist, , Georgetown University, Oct. 20, 2014.
  • Marc Rotenberg, Op-Ed, , US News and World Report, Dec. 5, 2014.
  • Marc Rotenberg, Op-Ed, , USA Today, May 14, 2014.
  • Marc Rotenberg, , Harvard International Review (Spring 2014).
  • Marc Rotenberg & David Jacobs, , 36 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, 605 (2013).

from software advice's survey:

when europe’s highest court ruled in may that individuals had a “right to be forgotten”—i.e., they have the right to request that outdated or “irrelevant” information about them be removed from search results—the shockwaves were heard around the world.

given the first amendment and the traditionally strong emphasis on the public’s right to know in american culture, it may be difficult to imagine such a ruling happening stateside. but american culture is also traditionally strong on protecting privacy—and in fact, in january 2015, variant legislation applicable only to minors will become law in california. what if u.s. citizens start demanding the right to be forgotten, too?

we at software advice were intrigued by the possibility, so we surveyed 500 adults in the u.s. to find out how they felt about the right to be forgotten and the problems the law seeks to address. we then quizzed a panel of experts for their opinions on this complex issue.

Key Findings:

sixty-one percent of americans believe some version of the right to be forgotten is necessary.

买哪种彩票更容易中奖thirty-nine percent want a european-style blanket right to be forgotten, without restrictions.

nearly half of respondents were concerned that "irrelevant" search results can harm a person’s reputation.

Top News

  • Pew Survey: Americans Support 'Right to Be Forgotten': A new Pew Research found that 74% of U.S. adults say it is more important to keep things about themselves from being searchable online than it is to discover potentially useful information about others. And 85% say that all Americans should have the right to have potentially embarrassing photos and videos removed from online search results. EPIC advocates for the "right to be forgotten" and maintains a webpage on U.S. state laws that allow individuals to remove records containing disparaging information. EPIC publication an account of the original case written by former Spanish Privacy Commissioner Artemi Rallo, is available in the EPIC bookstore. (Jan. 27, 2020)
  • Google Wins Global Delisting Case at European High Court, But Paragraph 72: In , the Court of Justice for the European Union Google is not required to apply Europeans' requests to de-reference search results globally. The case follows an earlier that Europeans have a right to remove links to their personal data in Google search results - the "Right to Be Forgotten." In the most recent case, the Court ruled that "currently there is no obligation under EU law, for a search engine operator...to carry out such a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine." However, the Court also said that the search operator must "take sufficiently effective measures" to prevent searches for deferenced information from within the EU with a search engine outside of the EU. The Court also stated, in paragraph 72, that national authorities, in some circumstances, could require global delisting. EPIC the CNIL's approach contending that "commercial search firms should remove links to private information when asked." EPIC published an account of the original case by former Spanish Privacy Commissioner Artemi Rallo. (Sep. 25, 2019)
  • More top news »
  • Top European Court Hears Key "Right to Be Forgotten" Case » (Sep. 11, 2018)
    the heard arguments in the "Right to Be Forgotten." Google v. CNIL follows a that Europeans have a right, in some circumstances, to remove links to their personal data posted online by Google. Google has fought the judgement of the European high court and now is fighting the French agency, continuing to post links to personal data worldwide even after it is found to violate privacy rights in democratic countries. EPIC has the CNIL's approach, explaining that "the right to privacy is global." EPIC published an account of the case by former Spanish Privacy Commissioner Artemi Rallo, an EPIC Champion of Freedom.
  • UK Government Releases Statement of Intent Describing New Data Protection Bill » (Aug. 10, 2017)
    The UK has released a describing a forthcoming bill that would make major revisions to the the country's data protection law. The new rules would follow the EU's General Data Protection Regulation by strengthening rules for obtaining consent, making it easier for consumers to withdraw consent, and improving consumers' ability to access, move, and remove data about themselves. The bill would also expand the definition of "personal data" to include DNA and IP addresses and would make it a crime to re-identify individuals from anonymized data. EPIC supported the GDPR and the right to be forgotten, has explained that IP addresses are personal data, and has warned of the risks of improperly "de-identified" data. EPIC recently filed a complaint asking the FTC to investigate Google's use of a proprietary, secret algorithm Google claims can "de-identify" consumers while tracking their purchases.
  • Google Concedes "Right to be Forgotten" Applies Worldwide » (Feb. 11, 2016)
    After waging an unproductive battle against the privacy rights of Internet users, Google will remove links to sensitive personal information. Google had challenged the legal authority of the Spanish people to protect their personal information, but lost the case before the top court in Europe. Google then claimed that the links to personal data should only be removed in the country where the Internet user resided. Privacy experts said for the "global Internet." The French data protection agency threatened Google with . Google again fought back, claiming it did not need to comply with decision of the Now the company has decided to comply with the law.
  • Google Ordered to Comply with Ruling of European High Court » (Sep. 21, 2015)
    The , the "CNIL," has ordered with the of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the "Right to be Forgotten." The CNIL Google's proposal to remove only a few links to the personal information it publicized widely around the world. The President of the CNIL said the decision "simply requests full observance of European legislation by non European players offering their services in Europe." EPIC has previously explained that and that the position of Google, as an operator of search engines around the world, .
  • After Losing Appeal, Google Moves to Block Scope of European Privacy Right » (Jul. 30, 2015)
    Google has that it does not intend to comply with a judgement of the high court in Europe after earlier losing its appeal in Earlier this year, the French Data Protection agency, to delist certain links in all domains in which the search company operates. A recently leaked version of a Google transparency report found concern private matters of private individuals. Support for the "right to be forgotten" continues to grow around the world with courts in Japan, Canada, and the United States acknowledging similar claims.
  • Leaked Google Data: 95% of "Right to Be Forgotten" Requests Come From Private Individuals Concerning Private Information » (Jul. 15, 2015)
    Nearly all of the "right to be forgotten" requests made to Google up to March 2015 came from everyday members of the public seeking to remove links to private information. The , accidentally embedded in the source code of Google's transparency report, show that just five percent of the nearly 220,000 delinking requests concerned criminals, politicians, or public officials. This revelation undercuts claims by Google and some media companies to the right by the Court of Justice of the EU last year. EPIC has and argued that the right should be recognized in the United States.
  • France Tells Google Apply Right to Be Forgotten Worldwide or Face Fines » (Jun. 12, 2015)
    French authorities have Google with fines if it fails to apply Europe's right to be forgotten ruling to the search engine's global domains, including Google.com. Google has been reluctant to apply the broadly, even after made clear that Google is violating the court judgement if it routinely discloses sensitive personal information to Internet users worldwide. EPIC explained in and that Google's position is illogical and inconsistent. According to a , nine out of ten voters in the United States want the right to delete links to personal information.
  • EPIC Launches State Policy Project » (May. 5, 2015)
    EPIC has launched the EPIC State Policy Project to track legislation across the county concerning privacy and civil liberties. The EPIC State Project will identify new developments and model legislation. The Project builds on EPIC's extensive work on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues in the states. The new State Project will focus on student privacy, drones, consumer data security, data breach notification, location privacy, genetic privacy, the right to be forgotten, and auto black boxes.
  • Most U.S. Voters Want "Right to Be Forgotten" » (Mar. 20, 2015)
    According to a , nine out of ten voters in the United States want the right to delete links to personal information. Those voters say they would support a U.S. law that permits Internet users to ask search companies, such as Google, to remove links to certain personal information. Last May the top court in the European Union the "right to be forgotten" as a fundamental right, protected by the EU Constitution. EU citizens may require search companies to remove personal information that is inadequate, irrelevant, and inaccurate. The recent US survey bolsters the findings of a which found that 61% of Americans supported the right to be forgotten. EPIC has that the right should be established in the United States.
  • EU Officials: Court Ruling on "Right to be Forgotten" Applies Worldwide » (Dec. 1, 2014)
    Privacy regulators in the European Union have issued calling for the recent "Right to be Forgotten" ruling to apply worldwide. In May, the European Union Court of Justice that a European Union citizen can ask search engines to remove links in search results based on the citizen's name. However, Google chose to remove the links for only certain domains, leaving the private information subject to the ruling accessible to most users. The new report makes clear that the ruling should apply across all search engine services. The EU officials explain, "limiting de-listing to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient means to satisfactorily guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the ruling." For more information, see , EPIC: Right to Be Forgotten, EPIC: International Privacy Law, EPIC: Expungement.
  • European Privacy Groups Boycott Google Roadshow » (Nov. 5, 2014)
    Leading European privacy organizations have turned down invitations from Google to participate in a , designed to raise questions about a regarding the right to privacy. The European Consumer Organization (BEUC), the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRi), and Privacy International are among several of the groups that are not participating in the Google meetings. EU policymakers have also , describing the tour as a "publicity stunt." For more information, see , EPIC: Right to Be Forgotten, EPIC: International Privacy Law, EPIC: Expungement, and (USA Today).
  • Japan Adopts "Right to Be Forgotten" » (Oct. 14, 2014)
    A Japanese court has to delete about half of the search result for a man linked to a crime he didn't commit. Judge Nobuyuki Seki of the Tokyo District Court that the search results "infringe personal rights," and had harmed the plaintiff. A also found that 61 percent of Americans favor the EU Court of Justice decision regarding the right to be forgotten. And Canada is the establishment of a similar legal right. For more information, see EPIC: Right to Be Forgotten, EPIC: Public Opinions and Privacy, and EPIC: Expungement.
  • US Federal Court Upholds "Right to be Forgotten" for Seized Data » (Jun. 20, 2014)
    A federal appeals court that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when investigators searched computer files that had been seized in an unrelated investigation more than two and a half years earlier. The Second Circuit found that the government has a duty to delete all files not responsive to the original warrant and cannot indefinitely retain data "for use in future criminal investigations." This rule imposes a data minimization requirement on law enforcement investigators and is similar also to the much discussed "right to be forgotten." EPIC argued in favor of the data minimization principles adopted by the Ninth Circuit in . For more information, see , EPIC: Quon v. City of Ontario, CA and EPIC: Code of Fair Information Practices.
  • EU Court Rules Google Must Respect Right to Delete Links » (May. 13, 2014)
    The European Court of Justice has and ruled that Google must delete links upon request concerning private life. The Court also determined that companies are subject to the EU Data Protection Directive and that jurisdiction extends to companies that set up a branch in an EU state. The Court said that since privacy is a fundamental right, it overrules the economic interests of the company and the public interest in access to the information. However this is not the case concerning one's activity in public life. EPIC has broadly supported the privacy rights of Internet users and the specific right to "expunge" information held by commercial firms. For more information, see EPIC - In re Facebook, EPIC - Expungement, and EPIC - G.D. v. Kenny.

Background

Procedural History

买哪种彩票更容易中奖in 2010 mario costeja gonzález, filed a complaint with the agencia española de protección de datos (aedp), the spanish data protection agency, against a local newspaper and google spain for claims relating to auction notices mentioning gonzález published in 1998. the notices concerned real estate auctions held to secure repayment of gonzález's social security debts. gonzález contended that these pages were no longer necessary because "the attachment proceedings concerning him had been fully resolved for a number of years and that reference to them was now entirely irrelevant." he sought to have the local newspaper, la vanguardia, remove the pages or alter them so his personal information was no longer displayed. he also sought for google inc. to remove the links to the articles in question so that the information no longer appeared in google search results.

the aedp dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the newspaper, but allowed those against google. google appealed to spain's high court, which in turn referred three questions to the ecj:

买哪种彩票更容易中奖(1) whether eu rules apply to search engines if they have a branch or subsidiary in a member state;

(2) whether the directive applies to search engines; and

(3) whether an individual has the right to request that their personal data be removed from search results (i.e. the "right to be forgotten").

ECJ Decision

the ecj first ruled that the directive applies to search engines. the directive sets forth rules for "controllers" involved in the "processing of personal data." the ecj held that search engines engage in "processing of data" because they explore the internet "automatically, constantly and systematically in search of the information." the ecj further held that search engines are "controllers" within the meaning of the directive because search engines "determine[] the purposes and means of" data processing.

second, the court concluded that because google inc. had a subsidiary (google spain) operating within the territory of spain (a member state), even though google itself is based within a non-member state (the united states), the directive properly applied to google and google operated as "an 'establishment' within the meaning of the directive." the court concluded this despite google's assertion that the data was not processed within spain, because google intended to "promote and sell, in the member state in question, advertising space offered by the search engine in order to make the service offered by the engine profitable." for these reasons, ruled the court, google has an obligation in certain cases to remove the links to pages displayed by third parties, even if the information published by those third parties is itself lawful.

买哪种彩票更容易中奖third, the ecj held that individuals have a right to request search engines to remove links to personal information. the court held article 12(b) of the directive gives individuals the right to ask search engine operators to erase search results that are incompatible with article 6. article 12(b) of the directive give data subjects the right to "rectification, erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the provisions of [the] directive." article 6 requires that data is "adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected", "accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date", and "kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than necessary." the court also made clear that it is not necessary to find that links cause prejudice to the data subject. the court held that "a fair balance should be sought in particular between that interest and the data subject's fundamental rights." however, "those rights override, as a rule, not only the economic interest of the operator of a search engine but also the interest of the general public in finding that information . . . ." this balance would vary on a case-by-case basis and may depend on "the nature of the information in question and its sensitivity for the data subject's private life" and the public's interest in the information. the public's interest, in turn, may vary depending on whether the individual is a public figure. according to the court, google's economic interest and the public's interest in links to gonzalez's auction notices did not outweigh the serious interference with gonzalez's fundamental rights under the directive.

Legal Documents

Additional Resources

  • Marc Rotenberg, , New York Times (May 2, 2016)
  • Intelligence Squared Debate: , Mar. 11, 2015.
  • (last updated Nov. 17, 2014).
  • European Commission, (2012).
  • Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4(2), COM (2012) 11 final (Jan. 25, 2012),
  • Viviane Reding, , January 22, 2012, Speech in Munich, Germany before the Innovation Conference Digital, Life, Design.
  • Jeffrey Rosen, 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 88, February 13, 2012.
  • Steven C. Bennett, Berkley J. Int'L Law 161 (2012).
  • Meg Ambrose and Jef Ausloos, , 3 Journal of Information Policy 1 (2012).

EPIC's Related Work

  • Expungement
  • the social consequences of a criminal record can lead to the denial of an individual's right to civic participation. life, subsequent to an arrest, is permanently altered. regardless of whether an individual has been convicted, an arrest or citation typically persists on a criminal record. therefore, even a person who has had the charges against them dropped may be subject to a degree of social ostracism and a de facto public finding of guilt. some states permit individuals who are arrested, but not convicted, to expunge their arrest records. others permit some convicts to apply for expungements after time has passed from the completion of their sentences.

  • G.D. v. Kenny
  • in g.d. v. kenny, a case raising both defamation and privacy tort claims, the supreme court of new jersey has held that defendants are entitled to assert truth as a defense, even when the relevant facts are subject to an expungement order under a state statute. the court relied on the fact that criminal conviction information is disseminated before the entry of an expungement judgement. in an amicus brief, epic had urged the new jersey supreme court to preserve the value of expungement and further argued that data broker firms will make available inaccurate and incomplete information if expungement orders are not enforced by the state. the case may have implications for the "right to be forgotten."

News

  • Kelly Fiveash, , ArsTechnica (Mar. 7, 2016).
  • Liza Tucker, Op-Ed, , Wash. Post, Sept. 13, 2015.
  • Zoya Sheftalovich, , Politico EU, August 21, 2015
  • Sylvia Tippman and Julia Powles, , The Guardian, July 14, 2014.
  • Mark Scott, , NY Times, June 12, 2015
  • Mario Trujillo, , The Hill, Mar. 19, 2015
  • Daniel Wilson, , Law360, Mar. 10, 2015.
  • More news »
  • Mark Scott,, NY Times, Feb. 6, 2015.
  • Julia Fioretti, , Reuters, Jan. 19, 2015.
  • Mark Scott, , NY Times, Nov. 26, 2014.
  • Owen Bowcott & Kim Willsher, , The Guardian, Nov. 13, 2014.
  • The Japan Times, , Oct 10, 2014.
  • Jeffrey Toobin, , The New Yorker, Sept. 29, 2014.
  • The Wall Street Journal, , Sept. 11, 2014.
  • Daniel Humphries, , Software Advice, Sept. 5, 2014.
  • CBC News, June 16, 2014.
  • The Guardian, May 13, 2014.
  • BBC News May 13, 2014.
  • The Washington Post May 13, 2014.
  • The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2014.
  • The New York Times, May 13, 2014.
  • USA Today, May 13, 2014.
  • CNN, Paul Bernal, May 13, 2014.
  • The Telegraph, Feb. 9, 2012.
  • The Economist, Jan. 28, 2012.
  • Peter Fleischer, March 9, 2011, Privacy...?

买哪种彩票更容易中奖share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
ksrlnkl.cn/ccpa
EPIC Mueller Report book
US Needs a Data Protection Agency
乐优彩票网址是多少 乐优彩票天天红单下载 乐优彩票登入,备用,官方网址 乐优炫彩官网 乐优炫彩彩票app下载 乐八彩票 乐体育app下载 乐优炫彩app 乐优炫彩app天天红单 乐优炫彩app下载