Google with one a press release announced today officially and once again its concerns about the right to oblivion. It is well known that the company collects all the information that is available on the Internet, which has often been targeted at the protection of personal data and activists.
But what about the right to oblivion? Does today's announcement of the company seeming to be worried about the side effects of the new measure is another pre-trial trick?
According to Google's announcement:
"European citizens have the right to request the removal of information concerning their person from the search results, in cases where these are out of date or untrue. From the beginning, we have publicly expressed our concerns about the decision, yet we have worked hard to comply with it, and we have done so conscientiously and in cooperation with the Data Protection Authorities. To date, we have handled requests to delete more than 2 million results searchς στην Ευρώπη, και απομακρύνει περισσότερα από 800.000 εξ αυτών. Έχουμε, επιπλέον, φροντίσει, με μεγάλη caution, not to delete results of public interest, exactly as defined by the European Court. And most Data Protection Authorities have concluded that this particular approach ensures the appropriate balance.”
And it continues:
"We - along with a wide range of organizations of human rightsAnd the media but also others, such as Wikimedia- we believe that this is contrary to the basic principles of international law, which require that no country should have the jurisdiction to enforce laws on citizens of other countries, especially when it comes to linking to any legal content. "The adoption of such a regulation would encourage other countries, including less democratic regimes, to try to impose their values on the citizens of another country."
Let us say that the right to oblivion has already been successfully implemented, even though the new regulation establishing it has not been formally implemented.
The first company to publish an online page that allows deletion requests was Google, followed by Bing and the former Yahoo.
Initially the removeς των αποτελεσμάτων από τα αιτήματα των ευρωπαϊκών χωρών, γινόταν μόνο στα domains της Google που ήταν ορατά στην Ευρώπη. Αργότερα η αφαίρεση των πληροφοριών επεκτάθηκε σε όλα τα domains της εταιρείας, μετά από προειδοποιήσεις της γαλλικής αρχής προστασίας δεδομένων για επιβολή κυρώσεων σε περίπτωση που τα searching results were not removed globally (from all domains).
Where is the problem;
Will the Law apply correctly? 2018 is approaching, and the law will begin to apply explicitly. But who will control him? Law opponents have clearly very important arguments.
Most importantly, if the law is not properly enforced, it will directly and indirectly affect the freedom of expression and the press, since a part of history will be virtually deleted.
Wikipedia and many other major journalistic websites (Guardian, BBC) have raised strong concerns about the measures that are coming.
So imagine that due to the huge volume of applications that the Companies it will take millions of working hours to examine each one individually. This means huge costs, and of course there are companies that will not have the necessary staff. Thus, they may simply satisfy the requests without any substantial control.
So let's say, for example, that we could see a politician who has been involved in corruption scandals, re-nominating after 10-15 years, without there being anything recorded about what he has done in the past.
The example above concerns and supports Google's claim.
But we forget something important:
Open it nature of Internet. Κάνεις δεν μπορεί να κρυφτεί στο διαδίκτυο. Μετά την κατάργηση των links που αναφέρονται σε κάποιο αίτημα που λαμβάνει μια μηχανή search, more will appear. Something that doesn't stop especially when the public suspects censorship.
By that logic, yes Google's concern does not seem to be so genuine, since it knows the internet and the principles that govern it much better than we do… After all, which company will not take care to defend its main source of income?
Yes we are talking about information… ..