Personal Democracy Plus Our premium content network. LEARN MORE You are not logged in. LOG IN NOW >

EU Court to Determine if People Googling Themselves Have the Right to Censor Search Results

BY Julia Wetherell | Wednesday, February 27 2013

Google Spain.

If an Internet user sees that their reputation is getting tarnished online, should they have the right to request that the data be removed from search results?  That’s the premise of a case from Spain that the European Court of Justice will be deliberating over the next several months, after the country’s highest court ruled that Google was responsible for the spread of the harmful information. 

The case arose after a Spanish man found search results under his name that stated property he owned was up for auction after nonpayment of social security.  The Spanish Audiencia Nacional upheld his complaint in early 2012.  As Reuters reported, Google challenged the case last year and appealed to the EU court yesterday, citing the questionable precedent that the Spanish ruling establishes.  If search engines are given responsibility for withholding content, they could effectively become “controllers” policing the Internet. 

This is a responsibility that Google doesn’t want to have.  In a blog post on Tuesday, William Echikson, Google’s Head of Free Expression for Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, stated the company’s case against blocking search results in these cases:

There are clear societal reasons why this kind of information should be publicly available. People shouldn't be prevented from learning that a politician was convicted of taking a bribe, or that a doctor was convicted of malpractice.

Google’s quiet compliance with some aspects of government censorship in China raises a paradox about the precedent for this case, though in the EU, the company maintains that it will uphold freedom of expression over individual privacy.  The appeal comes as the EU considers legislation that will give citizens greater control over online privacy, including the data companies are collecting on them.  The court will announce their ruling in June, and will also determine whether Google, which is based in California, is subject to EU law. 

Personal Democracy Media is grateful to the Omidyar Network for its generous support of techPresident's WeGov section.

News Briefs

RSS Feed today >

First POST: Sad Reality

How social media changed the course of the Ferguson story; Ready for Hillary's 3-million-member email list; why Mark Cuban opposes net neutrality rules; and much, much more. GO

monday >

First POST: All Against All

Why Uber isn't "the future" of cities; why journalists lost control of journalism; how Sean Parker is spending his political money; and much, much more. GO

friday >

First POST: Power Frames

The differences between "old power" and "new power"; Uber as a new/old power hybrid; debating Clay Shirky's feminist cred; and much, much more. GO

thursday >

First POST: Creeping

Senator Al Franken's tough questions for Uber's CEO; how the NSA could make its phone metadata program permanent; global privacy groups launch a personal spyware catcher called Detekt; and much, much more. GO

Recreation.gov and other Govt Projects Move Toward Embracing New Digital Approach

A draft request for proposals for the revamping of Recreation.gov will include a requirement that reservation availability data be publicly accessible and that all proposals detail how they will enable third-party sales, as two members of the United States Digital Services have joined the government team overseeing the RFP, meeting some key demands of civic technologists and consumer oriented technology companies. GO

wednesday >

First POST: Ubermenschens

Surge-pricing in effect for Uber privacy violations; why "privacy" policies should be called "data usage" policies; pols silent on Uber mess; and much, much more. GO

More