BrochuresCartoon

COURSES (BCS/ISEB)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London: Foundation
Sept 29,30,Oct 1

Leeds: Practitioner
Starts Oct. 13th

Edinburgh: Practitioner
Starts Nov 2nd

London: Practitioner
Starts Nov 16th

FOI Training
London: Practitioner
Starts May 12th

Information Security Management Training (CISMP)
London: Foundation
Starts Dec. 1st

Training/Update/Events
Update: Oct 19th
DP Regulation: Sept 17th
PIA: Sept 15th
DP Audit: Sept 16th

Amberhawk

« If the European Court has established a right to be forgotten, it has also established a right to object to marketing | Main | If Google remembers whom it has forgotten, has it complied with the ECJ Judgment? »

29/05/2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I take your point that this ruling doesn’t necessarily mean anything more than search-engine-data-controllers (and hence regulators and courts) will need to balance Article 8 and Article 10 ECHR rights, but I do think (in light of that) what is notable about the CJEU’s findings is its own lack of attention to Article 10 ECHR, or Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (as Anya Proops points out in this piece http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/opinion/privacy-but-at-what-price/3020995.article).

Surely the issue of people appealing to the ICO will come up only if Google checks and assesses each complaint rigorously. They might not do that - it may be simpler and cheaper for them to just remove results on request, in a similar way that newspaper comments sections do. Now you can argue that Google would then be complicit but it's obviously a private business and has no obligation to provide all information however valuable it is to the public.

I was considering the impact it might have on their brand. Google makes its billions by promising a comprehensive search. If it rolls over then would people look elsewhere for their search requirements? We have a partial answer to this already as Google removes links breaching copyright already, and it hasn't lost them money. I suspect Google may put in place a process which makes people jump several hurdles with an output that can be assessed easily by a handful of people. They may reject applications more often than not, but persistent applicants will be successful after they have exhausted the internal process and applied to the ICO or other authority. The point at which expensive lawyers get involved would be the point to cave in.

The comments to this entry are closed.

All materials on this website are the copyright of Amberhawk Training Limited, except where otherwise stated. If you want to use the information on the blog, all we ask is that you do so in an attributable manner.