BrochuresCartoon

COURSES (ISEB/BCS)
follow link for detail

Data Protection Training

London
Starts Nov 17th

Leeds
Starts Oct. 15th

Edinburgh
Starts Nov 3rd

FOI Training
London
Starts Oct 23rd

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

Training/Update/Events
Update: October 27th
EU Regulation: Dec 16th
PIA: Dec 8th
DP Audit: Dec 9th

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

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a0115709c6f9d970b01a3fd12c531970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Press and Google misrepresent European Court’s Google judgement:

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.