European Court of Justice’s Recent Ruling Has Many Asking: “What Now?”, Google’s Response, And the EU’s Counter-Response
Mark Scott reported for The New York Times that 28 data privacy regulators from various agencies across the EU will carry out the European Court of Justice’s (EUCJ’s) recent ruling that Google can be forced to remove links from certain searches. “But”, wrote Scott, “the court gave agencies little guidance in applying the ruling, and they (the regulators) are likely to interpret it in different ways.” Scott reports that there are two other issues with the ruling: First, the question of whether non-Europeans would be eligible for petitioning European regulators to have information removed and second, the question of what obligation Google or other search engines will have in responding to requests to remove information.
Scott explained that, although Google has previously been confronted with requests to take down information, neither Google nor any other search provider has ever “faced the prospect of handling so many demands for unlinking online content that the new European ruling may have unleashed.”
Guardian.com reported that Google has since created a webpage that allows European citizens to request the removal of search results that are about them. The webpage, which Google launched in response to the recent EUCJ ruling, is the “first step to comply with a court ruling affirming the ‘right to be forgotten’” wrote the Guardian.
According to The Register contributor Andrew Orlowski, Google’s response to the ruling included appointing a team of five independent advisors. Orlowski wrote that two of the five appointed advisors have already called for the law to be changed and that the EU’s advisory panel on privacy and data protection has warned Google to comply with Europe’s laws in what he described as “an unusually strongly worded statement”.
According to Orlowski, the advisory panel, the Article 29 Working Party, a group which, according to its website, “was set up under the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data” has vowed to ensure that Google plays by the rules. And in a missive dated June 6, 2014, the Article 29 Working Party expressed an appreciation for Google’s swift effort in creating the webpage “even if at this stage it is too early to comment on whether the form is entirely satisfactory. “
Orlowski wrote that, the Article 29 Working Party’s statement is [really] saying “If you don’t respect the law…, we’ll investigate – and take the side of the individual, where merited.”
* * *
“Right to be Forgotten” Should Serve as a Serious Wake Up Call about Our Privacy
Forbes contributor Joseph Steinberg recently wrote that “People should realize that many privacy protections that Americans believe that they enjoy – even some guaranteed by law – have, in fact, been eroded or even obliterated by technological advances.” Steinberg specifically discussed search engines, using several examples to emphasize how search engines have been detrimental to certain protections that Americans have been afforded.
Steinberg’s comments are in response to the recent European Court Justice ruling, which ordered “Google to grant people the right to be forgotten” which he believes should serve as a “serious wake up call” to everyone about his or her information.
While, in Steinberg’s view, this ruling will directly benefit people living or doing business in Europe, he writes that it could also spark discussions about privacy in the United States, thus indirectly benefiting Americans.
* * *
Snapchat voted: “Least Likely to Have Your Back”.
Andrea Peterson reported for The Switch that according to a report recently published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Snapchat does NOT have your back. The report, “Who Has Your Back”, featured EFF’s evaluation of over two dozen tech companies. Peterson explained that EFF’s assessments were based on publicly available policies and used the following categories to rate the companies, based on whether they: “1) require a warrant for communications content [private messages stored by online services like Facebook, Google, and Twitter]; 2) tell users about government data requests; 3) publish transparency reports; 4) fight for users’ privacy rights in courts; 5) publicly oppose mass surveillance; and 6) publish law enforcement guidelines.”
Peterson explained that, according to the report, Snapchat ranked lowest out of the 26 companies assessed this year, receiving just 1 out of 6 stars for fulfilling only one category- publishing law enforcement guidelines.
Silicon Beat contributor Levi Sumagaysay wrote that although the EFF report could help people make decisions about the companies with which they decide to do business, “it’s important to note the limitations of the stars.” Sumagaysay writes, for example, that although many companies choose to release transparency reports, the content which they are legally permitted to disclose in regard to government requests for user data is limited. She concludes, “And while the report may inspire companies to do better on protecting their users’ information, they can only do so much if the reports that the government scoops up data without the companies’ knowledge are true.”
* * *
Privacy Activists Concerned About Private Firms’ Growing Collections of License Plate Data.
Robert Faturechi reported for Los Angeles Times that, although data collected from traffic cameras is invaluable to law enforcement, private firms are building databases that can make this information readily available for purchase to anyone who wants it- from lenders to repo men. “That is raising worries among privacy advocates and lawmakers,” he writes, “who say the fast-growing industry is not only ripe for conflicts of interest but downright invasive.”
According to Faturechi, the data compiled from license plate photos includes information about cars’ locations, numbers of sightings, as well as detailed records of the times and dates of sightings. He adds: “Privacy activists warn that tracking cars over time can reveal where people live, work, worship and who they associate with. A sudden change in someone’s routine could hint at a breakup or an affair.”
In a Los Angeles Register opinion piece titled “Editorial: Stop license plate data abuse before it’s too late”, the author writes that “License plate data isn’t just a snapshot in a musty old file downtown. It’s an open-ended, ongoing way that millions of us are physically tracked wherever we drive our cars.” The author urges California lawmakers to take this opportunity to lead on the issues concerning personal privacy which arise from this data collection.
Add Comment