The Right Side of the Right to be Forgotten

The Right Side of the Right to be Forgotten

In the summer of 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that individuals have the Right to be Forgotten. That is to say, the Court ruled that people have the right to ask a search engine to remove links that contain personal information about them. The Right to be Forgotten or RTBF can only be exercised under certain conditions, such as when the information is inaccurate, outdated or otherwise irrelevant, but this limitation has not made the ruling any less controversial.

The Internet search provider Google is, of course, front and center in the debates surrounding the definition and extent of the RTBF. Indeed, it was Googles unwillingness to remove the digital footprint of a Spanish national who took issue with the fact that a Google search turned up information about an outdated legal matter that caused the court to examine this extension of human privacy rights. The Courts ruling brought the RTBF into being, and in so doing, it opened up some rather massive virtual floodgates.

Thousands upon thousands of requests to remove names from search results, a process often referred to as "delisting," have poured into Googles now-automated removal request system, and the Google Advisory Council on the Right to be Forgotten has been forced into a discussion with the Court about just exactly where and when information should be delisted. Indeed, the question of where is now at the heart of the most recent dilemma caused by the RTBF.

When a person types "www.Google.com" into their web browsers navigation bar, they are automatically directed to their countrys main Google page. For example, people in the United States are directed to www.Google.com, people in the United Kingdom are directed to www.Google.co.uk, people in Australia are taken to www.Google.com.au, and so on.

It is Googles belief that localized delisting is an effective and acceptable response to a delisting request, and that the information may still be published on non-European Google domains like Google.com without going against the Courts ruling. The EU does not concur.

Both sides of this argument make a fair bit of sense. The EU has inferred that the ability to use an alternate version of Google to access locally delisted information makes the RTBF virtually impossible to truly enforce. While this may be true, it is also true that the EU cannot force the whole of the Earth to comply with its own views on the extent of a persons right to privacy.

This problem is known as the question of extraterritoriality, and it is going to be a very difficult question to answer. In a recent report, the Council notes that the Courts ruling does not specifically address the issue of whether a delisting applies to more than just the European-directed search services. Officially, the report states that, in the current state of affairs and technology, a limited delisting is sufficient, noting that over 95% of all queries originating in Europe are on local versions of the search engine.

That report, based on a majority opinion, includes a section in which individual members of the Council may dissent. German MP Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger does just that, stating that she believes delisting from all domains is the only way to implement the Courts ruling, which implies a complete and effective protection of a data subjects rights. She goes on to argue that in the case of a global Internet, the protection of ones rights must be global.

Frances CNIL the French data protection authority is preparing injunctions and sanctions for a legal battle with the search giant if its requests for national delisting are not granted, and there will surely be other penalties from similar powers in other nations if Google continues to oppose the EUs interpretation of the Courts ruling. The company is no stranger to legal confrontations, and its own legion of lawyers is surely preparing for any eventualities.

Theres no telling whos on the side of righteousness in this fight. Indeed, there may not be one. Does the right to privacy supersede the right to free speech? Is one of these human rights more basic than the other? That may have to be decided in court. Wherever the decision is made, it will not be an easy one.

Search Optics Inc is a leader in digital marketing solutions for the automotive industry. Search Optics car dealer marketing services include custom websites, search engine optimization, paid search and mobile solutions that generate leads which result in sales opportunities. Search Optics specializes in car dealer marketing and automotive SEO services. For more details, please visit Searchoptics.com.