Google Spanish SL, Google Inc. v Agencia EspaÃÆ' Â ± ola de ProtecciÃÆ'³n de Datos, Mario Costeja GonzÃÆ'¡lez (2014) is a decision by the European Union Justice Tribunal (CJEU). It was held that Internet search engine operators are responsible for the processing done from personal information that appears on web pages published by third parties.
The result of the decision is that Internet search engines should consider requests from individuals to remove links to freely accessible web pages resulting from searches on their behalf. The reasons for deletion include the case where the search result (s) "appears inadequate, irrelevant or irrelevant or exaggerated in the light of the elapsed time." If a search engine rejects a request, an individual may ask the authorities to consider the case. Under certain conditions, search engines may be instructed to remove links from search results.
The decree is claimed to be the so-called right to be forgotten , although the Court does not explicitly grant such rights, subject to the right of the subject data derived from Article 7 (respecting personal and family life) and Article 8 (protection personal data) of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter.
The General Data Protection Rule is discussed to include the right to be forgotten, but between this final draft and version is changed to the right to request removal for a set of specific reasons.
Video Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González
Fakta
In 1998 the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia published two announcements in its print edition of the forced sale of property arising from social security debt. The announcement was published on the orders of the Spanish Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs and their goal was to attract as many bidders as possible. This edition version is then available on the web.
One of the properties described in the newspaper announcement belongs to Mario Costeja GonzÃÆ'¡lez, mentioned in the announcement. In November 2009, Costeja contacted the newspaper to complain that when his name was entered on the Google search engine, it led to an announcement. He requested that the data associated with it be removed, on the grounds that forced sales had been done years earlier and no longer relevant. The newspaper responded that the data was removed incorrectly because it was in the order of the Spanish Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs.
Costeja then contacted Google Spain in February 2010, requesting that the link to the announcement be removed. Google Spain forwards the request to Google Inc., whose offices are registered in California, United States, with the view that this is a responsible body. Costeja then filed a complaint with the Spanish Data Protection Agency (Agencia EspaÃÆ' Â ± ola de ProtecciÃÆ'³n de Datos , AEPD) requesting both that newspapers be required to delete the data, and that Google Spain or Google Inc. needed to remove link to data. On July 30, 2010, the AEPD Director rejected complaints against the newspaper but reinforced complaints against Google Spain and Google Inc., asking them to remove the complained links and make access to the data impossible.
Google Spain and Google Inc. then took a separate action against the decision before the Audiencia Nacional (Spanish National High Court). Their application is based on:
- Google Inc. not included within the scope of the EU Directive 95/46/EC (Data Protection Instructions ) and its subsidiaries Google Spain is not responsible for search engines
- no private data processing in search function
- even being processed, Google Inc. or Google Spain can not be considered a data controller
- in any case, the data subject (Costeja) has no right to remove the published material legally
Audiencia Nacional joins the action and continues the process pending the preliminary verdict of CJEU on a number of questions regarding the interpretation of the Data Protection Instructions . These questions fall into three groups. Essentially they worry:
- the territorial scope of the Directive
- the legal position of Internet search engine service providers under the Directive, particularly in terms of the Directive's material scope and whether search engines can be considered as data controllers
- whether the Directive specifies the so-called right to be forgotten
All of these questions, which also raise important points of fundamental rights protection, are new in the courts. As new legal points are involved, an advocate's opinion is sought by the court.
Procedures
The written process followed by an oral hearing was held on 26 February 2013, in which, in addition to the parties, the governments of Austria, Greece, Italy, Spain and Poland and the European Commission gave their opinion. Advocate General Niilo JÃÆ'¤ÃÆ'¤skinen gave his opinion on June 25, 2013, after which the decision was given on May 13, 2014.
General advocate's opinion
The purpose of an advocate's opinion is to advise the court about the new legal points. It's not binding in court. In this case, the advocate general is Niilo JÃÆ'¤ÃÆ'¤skinen from Finland.
Advocate General JÃÆ'¤ÃÆ'¤skinen often makes references in his opinion to the fact that Data Protection Instructions precedes the Google era (the date is from 1995 and will be replaced in May 2018 by > General Data Protection Regulations ). In the first set of questions, a general advocate found that Google's business model brings Google Inc. and Google Spain within the scope of the Directive. In a second set of questions concerning the scope of the material of the Directive, a public advocate states that Google can not be considered as a data controller: Google's search activity involves the processing of personal data, but Google does not become the data controller for the content of the material when processing is indiscriminate, indiscriminate and random. In the view of a general advocate, the directive of the Referrals is that "the controller is aware of the existence of certain categories of information specified as personal data and the controller processes this data with some intention related to their processing as personal data".
If the court does not agree with its findings that Google is not a data controller, the general advocate considers the third set of questions related to the to be forgotten right. He stated that the right to freedom of information and expression takes precedence over the right to abolish, and urges the court not to allow such case-by-case settlement which is likely to lead to "automatic withdrawal of links to any objectionable content or the number of untreated requests handled by the most popular and important Internet search engine service provider. "
Maps Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González
Judgment
The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Internet search engine operators are responsible for processing done from personal data appearing on web pages published by third parties, which enforce deletion rights.
The Court considers the material scope of the first Directive. The court rejected Google's submission, supported by the Advocate General, that it could not be considered as a data controller within the scope of the Data Protection Instructions, adopted literal interpretation of article 2 (b), provided definitions and rely on Lindqvist .
Regarding the territorial scope of the Directive, the court observes that Google Spain is a subsidiary of Google Inc. in Spanish territory and, therefore, a 'formation' in the sense of direction. Court rejects Google Inc. argument that does not perform data processing in Spain, stating that the promotion and sale of advertising space by its subsidiary Google Spain is sufficient to process in a directive sense. To decide otherwise will undermine the effectiveness of the directive and the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals whose directive seeks to ensure. The Court thus supports the Advocate General's view that Google Inc. and Google Spain should be treated as a single economic unit.
Regarding the obligations and duties of search engine operators, the court stated that in this case Article 7 (f) of the directive, related to the legitimacy of processing, requires a balance between conflicting rights and interests of the data subject (GonzÃÆ'¡lez) and data controller (Google) taking into account the rights of data subjects derived from article 7 (respecting personal and family life) and 8 (personal data protection) of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter. Article 14 (a) Instruction, in relation to the rights of the subject of data, enables the subject of data, at least in cases covered by chapters 7 (e) and 7 (f), to reject at any time for valid convincing reasons related to the particular situation to process data relating thereto, unless provided by national law. Article 12 (b) of the directive, relating to the subject's right of data from access to data, permits subject data to request deletion of data. Such requests may be made directly from the controller, who shall then verify appropriately the appropriateness of the request. If a request is not granted, the data subject may then direct the request to the regulatory authority or the judicial authority so as to carry out the necessary checks and instruct the controller to take the appropriate specific measures.
Regarding questions relating to the so-called right to be forgotten , the court noted that Google Spain, Google Inc., the governments of Greece, Austria and Poland and the European Commission considered this question to be answered. in negative terms. However, the court stated that "insufficient, irrelevant or excessive" data processing (not just inaccurate) may also be inconsistent with directives. In such a case, where data are not in accordance with the provisions of clauses 6 (1) (e) to (f) of the directives, relating to the quality of the data, the information and links in the results list must be removed. It is not necessary that the information is prejudicial against the subject of the data.
Significance
The verdict balances the right to privacy and protection of data in European law with the legitimate interest of the public to access such information, and does not mandate that such information be immediately deleted upon request. It distinguishes between public figures and private individuals. The court stressed that the Internet search engine profiles individuals in modern societies in ubiquitous ways, in a way that could not have been obtained before just saving with the greatest difficulty. The subject rights of the data should therefore generally rule out "as a rule, not only the economic interests of search engine operators but also the general public's interest in finding such information on searches relating to the data subject names", but that would not happen if that role played by the subject of data in public life is such "that disturbance with fundamental rights is justified by the greater interest of the general public in possession, due to inclusion in the list of results, access to the intended information".
Google then publishes an online form that can be used by EU citizens or EFTA citizens to request removal of links from their search results if the linked data is "inadequate, irrelevant or irrelevant, or exaggerated in relation to the purpose for which they have been processed". On May 31, 2014, on the first day of service, Google received over 12,000 requests from people who requested companies to remove certain links about them from their search results.
On June 19, 2015, Google announced it would remove links to non-consensual pornography ("porno revenge") on request. Commentators note that this is not the same as applying "the right to be forgotten" because the company already has the prevailing policies regarding sensitive personal data such as social security numbers and credit card numbers. However, Consumer Watchdog's consumer advocacy group then asked Google to extend the rights to be forgotten for US users, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
Comment
Implementation
The Data Protection Parties Article 29 of the European Union issues guidance on how decisions should be made on November 26, 2014.
Google publishes its advisory committee report on how the decision should take place on 5 February 2015. Their advisory committees include Luciano Floridi, Oxford University Professor of Philosophy and Ethics, Frank La Rue, who is the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Expression and Expressions, from August 2008 to August 2014, and Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. The Committee recommends that only national links, not global links, be deleted, and that publishers should be notified of such removal and entitled to challenge it.
On February 7, 2015, The Times reported that the head of the 29-member Working Party, Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, had warned Google that they faced legal action if it failed to notice its warning about how Google oversaw the decision. Working parties want Google to stop publishers and remove links globally.
See also
- Bodil Lindqvist v ÃÆ'â € | klagarkammaren i JÃÆ'¶nkÃÆ'¶ping (Lindqvist)
- Melvin v. Reid (US case law)
- Florida Star v. B. J. F. (US case law)
- The Streisand effect - filing a lawsuit to protect privacy can lead to significant media attention
- LICRA v. Yahoo!
Resources and resources
- References
- Source
External links
- Shoor, Emily Adams (2014). "Narrowing the Right to Forget: Why the EU Needs to Change the Proposed Data Protection Rule". Brooklyn International Law Journal . 39 (1): 487-519. SSRNÃ, 2410240 . Ã,
- Google's privacy law 'means rethinking the total freedom of freedom' The Independent , May 31, 2014.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments