European headache Google: When this privacy means censorship?

How Google and other U.S. Internet companies operating in Europe could drop a link, depending on which side of the Atlantic Ocean where you should or should not be deleted.

A hearing Tuesday before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is related to a complaint filed by a Spanish citizen who Google search for his name and I found a news article several years ago, saying the property would auctioned due to his failed payment of social security contributions.

The Spanish authorities argued that Google, search engines, and other Web companies operating in Spain must remove such information if it is considered a violation of the privacy of an individual. Google, however, believes that he should not have to remove search results from its index because the company did not create it in the first place. Google argued that it is the responsibility of the editor and its search engine is simply a channel for the content of others.

ECJ Advocate General will issue its opinion on the matter on June 25, with a decision expected by the end of the year. The outcome of the hearing will affect not only Spain, but all the 27 Member States of the European Union.In principle, this fight is freedom of speech in relation to privacy, with a hint of rich allegations Censorship mixed in. In fact, this could be one of the biggest changes to the rules of confidentiality EU for decades - by either strengthening or deny rules altogether.

The European perspective is simple: if you are in our party, you have to play by our rules. And Europe, the "right to be forgotten" is an important issue.

"Google and Facebook argue that they are not subject to EU law because they are physically located outside the EU," a spokesman for the European Commission told CNET. In proposals for new projects privacy laws, the message is: "as long as the company provides its goods or services to consumers in the EU, EU law should apply."

While Europe has one of the highest data protection and privacy laws in the world, the United States does not. And while the United States is among the highest freedom of expression and freedom of expression in the world, devoted a codified constitution, most European countries are not, instead favoring "the right word" principles.

Google also faces another legal twist: Spanish authorities are treating it as a media organization without offering any legal protection for it.
The European perspective is simple: if you are in our party, you have to play by our rules. And Europe, the "right to be forgotten" is an important issue.

Newspapers should be exempt from withdrawal requests to preserve individual freedom of expression, according to the Spanish authorities, but Google should not enjoy the same freedoms, despite the lack of editorial control, despite the search results is determined by algorithms. Although Google is accused of being a "publisher" as the newspapers, the search giant does not the media as a protection against dismantling under the laws of defamation of the country. This is not reflected in the whole of Europe, however. Some European newspapers member states directly targets and are held accountable by regulatory authorities release in order to reconcile freedom of expression and defamation laws.

One of the highest courts of Spain, the Agencia Espanola de Protección de Datos (AEPD) ruled in favor of the plaintiff in early 2011 and found that Google should remove the search result. This case is one of some 180 pending cases in the country.

Google appealed the decision and the case was referred to the highest court in Europe, the ECJ, which will eventually determine whether the search giant is the "controller" of the data or if it is simply a multitude of data.

The case will also decide whether U.S. companies are subject to European laws on privacy, which may mean EU citizens' privacy must take their case to the U.S. courts to determine whether Google is liable for damages caused by the diffusion "personal information."

In a blog post Tuesday, Bill Echikson, Google "head of the liberty of expression," said the search giant "refused to comply" with a request by the Spanish data protection authorities as the search list "includes factually correct, which is still publicly available on the journal's website."

"Clearly there are societal reasons why this information should be accessible to the public. Nobody should be prevented from learning a politician was convicted of accepting bribes, or that the doctor was found guilty of misconduct professional, "noted Echikson.

"We believe that the answer to this question is" no "Bots pointing to information that is published online - .. And in this case, the information should be made public by law we believe that the original publisher may decide to remove such content. Once removed from the source Web page, the content will disappear from the search engine index. "

EU's latest proposal Privacy: The "right to be forgotten"
If the European Court of Justice is in favor of the complainant Spanish, he will see the biggest overhaul of the EU rules on confidentiality in nearly two decades and allow European citizens' right to be forgotten ".

In January 2011, the European Commission unveiled draft proposals for a single one-size-fits-all rules of life for its 27 member states. One of the proposals was the "right to be forgotten" empower each resident the right to force European companies on the Web as well as companies outside remove or delete their data in order to preserve their privacy.For Europeans, the Privacy is a fundamental right for all citizens, in accordance with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in which he states: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. " It does however add a crucial exception. "There must be interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except ... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Because the U.S. tech giants like Google, Facebook and Twitter users, and in many cases a physical presence in Europe, they must comply with local laws. The "right to be forgotten" would require Facebook and Twitter to delete all the data it had on you, and the results of removing the Google search engine. It would also affect extraterritorial users around the world outside of the European Union which would also be unable to find search terms removed.

These Web companies have said (and pressured to do so) that the "right to be forgotten" should not allow data to be manipulated or removed at the expense of freedom of expression. This, however, does not stop with the material reprinted and other content indexed, and certainly does not apply to the application of EU law and intelligence agencies.

Two continents, separated by "free" and "right speech"
The United States and the European Union have never seen eye to eye on data protection and privacy. For Americans and American companies, the belief is that cross between freedom of expression and privacy overlap in "a form of censorship," according to Google's lawyers at trial speaking Spanish.

In the United States, you can freely say the words most horrible, as they do not lead to crime or violence against a person or group of people. In European countries such as the United Kingdom words can lead to an instant stop. European laws allow "the right word" to prevent harassment, fear of violence or alarm and distress. It is a dance between the American tradition of protecting the individual and the European tradition of protecting society.

Google is so fundamentally American in this regard. That said, Google already filters and censors its own research results at the request of governments and the private sector, although open and transparent. Google will agree to remove the links violate copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which aims to remove content from Google search results that could facilitate copyright infringement.

Google respects too, when they are forced by a court with many types of government requests, not limited to subpoenas, search warrants and national security letters, or so-called "gagging orders" . It also describes the applications and when he complies. And it is a system that is not very different from what it is asked to do in Europe.

Whose competence is in Google: United States, European Union, or both?
Although the principles of confidentiality apply to Web Europe, it is unclear whether they apply to "data controllers" established outside the European Union. But several court cases in Europe have agreed with local laws. A German court has found that Facebook has fallen under Irish law because the social networking company had a physical presence in Ireland, another EU Member State. In the case of Google, the Spanish authorities a similar argument, claiming that Google treats the data in a European state, and therefore EU law should apply.Many U.S. companies have expressed their objections to the EU legislation Privacy proposed, including Amazon, eBay, Yahoo, according to a watchdog lobbying. It could still take a year or two that the law is ratified.

"Exempting non-European companies in our regulations on data protection is not on the table. This would mean the application of double standards, "said the European Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding, the top politician in Europe on data protection and privacy policy in the region, in an interview with the Financial Times of London.

The new EU regulation on data protection proposed by the European Commission and currently being debated in Parliament, will probably be voted in June

But this struggle is not so much about censorship as one might think. It is a cultural difference between the two continents and perspectives on what freedom of expression can and should be. It is also privacy, and if privacy or freedom of expression is more important.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Copyright © trends ksr Design by Trends | Blogger Theme by Trends | Powered by VenkatSiva

google-site-verification: google275ce468b0c3e392.html