1 / 35

THE ORIGINS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN T he S panish experience

THE ORIGINS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN T he S panish experience. Dr. Artemi Rallo Lombarte Constitucional Law Professor Jaume I University at Castellón ( Spain ) Former Director of the Data Protection Spanish Agency Centre for Socio-Legal Studies

zea
Download Presentation

THE ORIGINS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN T he S panish experience

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE ORIGINS AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTENTheSpanishexperience Dr. Artemi Rallo Lombarte Constitucional LawProfessor Jaume I University at Castellón (Spain) Former Director of the Data ProtectionSpanish Agency Centre for Socio-Legal Studies University of Oxford June 12th 2012

  2. Communication of theEuropeanCommissionon“A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union” (4/11/2010) 2.1.3. Enhancing control over one's own data The example of online social networking particularly presents significant challenges to the individual's effective control over his/her personal data. The Commission has received various queries from individuals who have not always been able to retrieve personal data from online service providers, such as their pictures, and who have therefore been impeded in exercising their rights of access, rectification and deletion. Such rights should therefore be made more explicit, clarified and possibly strengthened. The Commission will therefore examine ways of: - clarifying the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, i.e. the right of individuals to have their data no longer processed and deleted when they are no longer needed for legitimate purposes. This is the case, for example, when processing is based on the person's consent and when he or she withdraws consent or when the storage period has expired.

  3. Article 17 Draft of General Data ProtectionRegulation (EU, 25/1/2012):Therightto be forgotten and toerasure (I) 1. Data subject shall have the right to ERASURE personal data AND to obtain the ABSTENTION FROM FURTHER DISSEMINATIONof such data - especially in relation to personal data which are made available by the data subject while he or she was a child -, where one of the following grounds applies: (a) the data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected; (b) the data subject withdraws consent or the storage period consented has expired, or there is not other legal ground; (c) the data subject objects to the data processing; (d) The data processing does not comply with the Regulation for other reasons. 2. Where the controllerhas made the personal datapublic, it shall take all reasonable steps, including technical measures, in relation to data for the publication of which the controller is responsible, to inform third parties which are processing such data, that a data subject requests them to erase any links to, or copy or replicationof that personal data. Where the controller has authoriseda third party publication of personal data, the controller shall be considered responsiblefor that publication.

  4. Article 17 Draft of General Data ProtectionRegulation (EU):Therightto be forgotten and toerasure (II) 3. The controller shall erasure data without delay, EXCEPT if retention is necessary: (a) for exercising freedom of expression; (b) in the area of public health; (c) for historical, statistical and scientific research; (d) because of a legal obligation to retain data laid down by Union or Member States: for an objective of public interest, respecting the essence of data protection right and being proportionated to the legitimate aim pursued; 4. Instead of erasure, the controller shall restrict processing of personal data where: (a) their accuracy is contested by the data subject, for a period to verify the accuracy of data; (b) the controller no longer needs data but he has to maintain them for purposes of proof; (c) processing is unlawful and data subject opposes their erasureand requests the restriction of their use instead; (d) data subject requests to transmit the personal data into another automated processing system in accordance with Article 18(2): portability

  5. Article 17 Draft of General Data ProtectionRegulation (EU):Therightto be forgotten and toerasure (III) 5. Personal data referred to in paragraph 4 (legal blockage, portability, objection, rectification) may only be processed: • for purposes of proof, • or with the data subject's consent, • or for the protection of the rights of another natural or legal person • or for an objective of public interest. 6. Where processing of personal data is restricted pursuant to paragraph 4, controller shall inform the data subject before lifting the restriction on processing. 7. The controller shall implement mechanisms to ensure that the time limits established for the erasure of personal data and/or for a periodic review of the need for the storage of the data are observed. 8. Where the erasure is carried out, the controller shall not otherwise process such personal data.

  6. Article 17 Draft of General Data ProtectionRegulation (EU):Therightto be forgotten and toerasure (IV) 9. The Commission shall adopt delegated acts for the purpose of further specifying: • the criteria and requirements to erasure in specific sectors and situations; (b) the conditions for deleting links, copies or replications of data from publicly available communication services; (c) the criteria and conditions for restricting the processing of personal data referred to in paragraph 4 (legal blockage, portability, objection, rectification).

  7. Spanishexperience: righttoerase data ontheInternet • YOUTUBE: IMAGES • Recording and dissemination on the Internet of images of prostitutes in Montera Street (MADRID). Residentsof the Montera Street recordedimages of prostitutes in a downtown Madrid Street and putthemon YOUTUBE. The AEPD sanctionedwith a fine of 1000 Euros. (b) Recording and dissemination of images of disabled person in YOUTUBE. Itwasthesecondpenalty (1500 Euros) imposedbythe AEPD forrecording and disseminatingimageswithoutconsenton YouTube. Theimagesshowedseveralyoungpeoplemakingfun of a mentallydisabledperson. • WEBSITES, BLOGS, CHATs, SOCIAL NETWORKS (FACEBOOK,...) • 2007-2008, 20 cases; in 2010, 150 complaints; and, in 2011, over 250

  8. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (I) 1.- JUDGMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE: TD/569/2008: AEPD 9/25/2008 • XXX requestedto erase in thegooglesearchindex data contained in a 2005 constitutionalcourtjudgement and linkedtoanoffence and punishment of 500,001 pesetas. • Theliteralfromthe GOOGLE indexinduced error as XXX seemedtohavebeenpunishedwhen he appearedrelatedto a differentjudgement in whichthesanctionhadbeencancelled: in fact, XXX wasrefered as anexample of non-infringement. • AEPD acceptedtheclaim and "urged Google totakethenecessarystepstoremove data fromthesearchengineindex and toavoidthefutureaccesstothem". • TheSpanishConstitutionobligestopublish in theOfficialGazettetheConstitutionalCourtJudgmentsbuttheConstitutionalCourtdecidedtoanonymisein its WEB data from XXX because"the data subjectwasnotpart of the case and theinclusion of hisnamelackssignificance in the case, so itiscomingtoadopttheagreement of replacement of theirsurnamesbythecorrespondinginitials"

  9. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (II) 2) HARASSMENT AGAINST A WOMEN VICTIM OF VIOLENCE OF GENRE: TD/172/2009. AEPD 7/20/2009 Womanvictim of violence of genreobjectedher data and herchildren data processingby Google searchengineby safety reasons. Shedidnotconsentphotos and otherpublications of herchildren in school and extracurricular activities, toavoidlocatingthemviathe Internet, but: (a) twosonsparticipated in sportscompetition of thecity of residence and theirnamesappearedonthelists of participants. (b) a daughterappearedonthewebsite of thehighschoolwiththeschoolmarks. High schoolcorrectedthemistake and herdaughterdisappearedfromthewebsitebutitwaspossibletoaccessfrom Google. (c) daughterdata appeared in Google bytheaward of a scholarship at theUniversity. (d) daughter data appeared in heruniversitylists. (e) a son appeared in Google forparticipating in a footballactivity. XXX requested a general measuretoavoid Google accesstotheirpresent and future data toavoiddangertotheirphysicalintegrity in case of beingtracedbythefather of herchildren (a judgementhadforbiddenthefathervisitstothechildren). AEPD acceptedtheright of objectionon data thatappearedcurrently in googlebutnotonfuture data (duetotechnicaldifficulties).

  10. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (III) 3) PARDON PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE: TD/989/2009 . AEPD 1/19/2010 Royal Decree of 1999 pardoned a crimeagainstpublichealth (drugtrafficking) and itwaspublished in OfficialGazette (as itismandatorybySpanishPardonAct). In thePardonDecreewaspublished: (a) whowassentenced in 1994 totwoyears in prison and a fine of 1,000,000 pesetas. (b) and thatthepardonwasconditionedtofollow and notabandon medical treatmentdrugaddictionrehabilitation. The AEPD acceptedtheclaim and: (1´) urged Googletotakethenecessarymeasurestoremove data fromitsindex and avoidfutureaccesstothem; (2´) obligedtheOfficialGazettetotakethenecessarymeasurestoavoidfuture data indexingby Google (the BOE tookstepstoavoidindexing).

  11. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (IV) 4) NEWS IN DIGITAL MEDIA "ELMUNDO.ES": TD/1435/2009: AEPD 2/17/2010 . News in El Mundo.es onNovember 20, 2007 oncrimes of fraud and misappropriation. . XXX arguesthatnewsis false and affectseriouslyhis honor, image, reputation and dignity, privacy, causinghimseriousconsequences in professional and personal level. . AEPD rejectedtheclaimbecausetheright of objectiondemands: 1´) existence of a legitimate and foundedreason; 2´) and thisreason has to be linkedto a specific personal situation. . AEPD didnotappreciatefounded and legitimatereasontojustifytheright of objection, because of thenewspublicrelevanceand withouthavingcreditedthat data and information are inaccurateorhavebecomeobsolete.

  12. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (V) 5) NEWS IN DIGITIZED NEWSPAPERS ("EL PAIS"): TD/1436/1437/2009: AEPD 3/24/2010 • Twosistersobjectedto EL PAIS, SL and Google, by a newson 27 February1985 ("thebrother of the Mayor of Barcelona, arrestedforallegeddrugtrafficking, entered a hospital") wheretheyappearedas "imprisoned" and "sufferingdrugswithdrawalsyndrome". • Thetwosistersargued: (a) thattherelevance of thenewswasthebrother of the Mayor of Barcelona; (b) and that, althoughnewswasaccurate, itdoesnotcorrespondwiththefinal resolutionof the judicial procedurefollowingarrestsorwiththeircurrenthealthsituation.

  13. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (VI) 6) DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS: TD/1486/2009. AEPD 3/12/2010 • Objectionagainst Google byseveral links onDecision of the Office of the High Commissionerfor Human Rights of UnitedNationsrejecting of theclaimlodgedby XXX onevictionhisfamily home byimplementinganurban plan in Cartagena (Spain) in 1989. • Theclaimantjustifiedobjetionbecauseitcauses a severeprejudicetohis personal and professionalreputation as a digital communication Manager: publicdisseminationisdisproportionated and itcannot be considered a news. • AEPD acceptedthecomplaintordering Google totakethenecessarystepstoremove data fromitsindex and avoidfutureaccesstothem.

  14. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (VII) 7) NEWS IN DIGITIZED NEWSPAPER ("LA VANGUARDIA"): TD/1887/2009. AEPD 5/24/2010 • Theclaimantexercisedtheright of objectiontotheprocessing of hisdata against Google and “La Vanguardia” bynews of July 14, 1989 withfollowing data: 1´) that he sufferedfromparanoidschizophreniaand he hadbeenacquitted of thecrime of parricidechargedbythepublicprosecutorbysuffocatinghis 4 years-oldchild(by pressing a pillowagainsthisfacewhile sleeping in October 1987); (2´) theabsolutionestimated a complete defence of mental illnessand orderedtheinternment of theclaimant in a psychiatric centre. • In favor of theobjection: a) thelong time sincethefacts, (b) and thatthememory of theevents, accordingtohispsychiatrist, underminedthe medical recovery. • AEPD acceptedthecomplaint and: 1´) urged Google totakethenecessarymeasurestoremove data fromitsindex and avoidfutureaccesstothem. 2´) and, relatedto La Vanguardia, a´) itconsideredfreedom of expressionprevailed; (b´) butthe AEPD "recalledthat media should use technicalmeasures, in theeventthatcomes legitimateinterest of a private individual and therelevance of thefact has ceasedtoexist, toavoidindexing of thenewsbythe Internet searchenginesfromitswebmaster".

  15. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (VIII) 8) NEWS IN DIGITIZED NEWSPAPER ("ABC"): TD 30/2010. AEPD 5/24/2010 • Objectionagainst Google and ABC bynews in 1975 concerningthearrest of 32 activists of theterroristgroupFRAP bylinking XXX toterroristactssuch as themurder of two civil guards. • Theclaimantargued: 1) he was 20 yearsold in 1975; (2) judicial proceedingswerefiled; (3) thefacts of thenewswere false; (4) facts are part of hisprivacy and past; (5) byhisname in thenewspaperlettobecoming a victim of telephonedeaththreatsand hadtochangehishome and hidehisphonenumber. • AEPD acceptedtheclaimagainst Google, urgingsuchentitytotakestepstowithdrawitsindex data and makeimpossiblethefutureaccesstothem. • AboutABC, AEPD consideredthat“freedomof expressionprevailed” but: "media should use technicalmeasures, in theeventthatcomes legitimateprivateinterest and therelevance of thefact has ceasedtoexist, toavoidindexing of thenewsby Internet searchenginesfromitswebmaster".

  16. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (IX) 9) DATA ON GOOGLE BLOGS. TD/92/2010 . AEPD 6/18/2010 • Doctor in a MalagaSchoolobjectsagainst Google forblogs that Google supports, with links towebsitesthatdisseminate personal data, mail addresses, places of work and photographs, accusinghim of arrest in 2008 forcrimes of child Internet pornography and sexual abuse of children. • XXX argues personal, family, labor, economic and moral damagebecause of disseminatingthese data and itchargedcrimesthatledtohisarrestbyananonymouscomplaint, butto a subsequentjudicial file. • AEPD: 1´) urged Google toavoidindexingand delete personal data fromthese GOOGLE blogs; (2) onthe blogs of thosewhoisnotresponsiblefor Google, urgedmeasuresthatpreventindexing of data.

  17. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (X) 10 NEWS IN DIGITIZED NEWSPAPER ("ABC"): TD/487/2010. AEPD 6/18/2010 • Objectionagainst ABC bynews of 1974 and February 7, 1975 withthetitle: "more than 20 youthsarrested in Madrid as involved in theconsumption and trafficking of drugs“. • Argumentsforobjection: 1) XXX wasarrested in 1974, when he wasstudent and legallyminor (19 years); (2) the trial wasacquitted; (3) todayhe isa prestigiousprofessional and hispublic (morale, professional and social) imageisbeingdamaged. • AEPD didnotaccepttheobjectionbecausefreedom of expressionprevailswhentheinformationistruthful and it has publicinterest. Butthe ABC newspapersaiditwould try toavoidthepossibility of search.

  18. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (XI) 11) PUBLICATION IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON JUDICIAL FREEZING ORDER . In 1996, a courtorderedfreezingpropertybecause of a crime and thiswaspublished in theOfficialGazette. . Yearslater, XXX ispardoned and pardonispublished in theOfficialGazette. . AEPD acceptedtheobjection and urged Google notto host the judicial freezingordernotice of seizured of property, published in theOfficialGazette. 12) NEWS IN DIGITIZED NEWSPAPER ("EL PAIS") ON PLASTIC SURGEON . In 1991, EL PAIS informedof a crimeby a plasticsurgeonwho, after trial, wasacquitted. . Newspaper published nothing abouttheacquittaland Google onlyindexednewsonthefirstnews. . AEPD acceptedtheopposition.

  19. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (XII) 13) PRISONS CIVIL SERVANT DISCIPLINARY SANCTION PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE . A disciplinarysanctionisimposedto a prisonofficer in the 90s. TheSpanishActstipulatesthatthissanctionmust be published in theOfficialGazette. . Theprisonofficermay be target of terroristacts(ETA) . AEPD acceptedtheobjection. 14) AEPD FIRST CASE: FINE NOTIFIED AND PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE . Sanctionedwith a fine in the 1980s by a local policefor “urinating in publicstreet". . Notbeingabletonotifythe fine at the postal address, theSpanishAdministrativeProcedureActprovidesfornotification of administrativeacts in OfficialGazette. . Currently, XXX isProfessor and Director of a High Schoolwherestudentsaccessto Google everyyeartoknowaboutthe fine published in thedigitizedOfficialGazette. . AEPD acceptedobjection and orderedgoogleto erase links and avoidfutureaccess.

  20. SPANISH EXPERIENCE AND GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE CASES: RIGHT TO OBJECT (XIII) 15) PRELIMINARY RULING LODGE INTO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY THE SPANISH NATIONAL COURT ON 2/27/2012: AEPD VERSUS GOOGLE: ADMINISTRATIVE EDICT PUBLISHED IN DIGITAL MEDIA: AEPD 7/30/2010 • XXX exercisestheright of objectionagainst "La Vanguardia" by a websitewith data relatedtoanauction of real estate causedbya freezingorderderivedfromdebtsto Social Security. • Thepublicationwascarriedoutbyorder of the Social Security in Barcelone • Thepublishedinformation no longerhadany "publicinterest". • The AEPD acceptedthe claim and: ( a) urged Google Inc "to take the necessary steps to remove data from its index and avoid future access"; ( b) butconsideredthat LA VANGUARDIA hadreasonsto deny the requested cancellation ''attending that the publication had legal justification and the main goal was giving the widest publicity to auctions to get the greatest competition of bidders".

  21. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GROUNDS (I)RIGHTS _ RIGHT TO ERASE: Article12 Directive 95/46: "MemberStatesshallguaranteeevery data subjecttherighttoobtainfromthecontroller: ..." (b) as appropriatetherectification, erasureorblocking of data theprocessing of whichdoesnotcomplywiththeprovisions of thisDirective, in particular because of theincompleteor and/orinaccuratenature of the data; (c) notificationtothirdpartiestowhomthe data havebeendisclosed of anyrectification, erasureorblockingcarriedout in compliancewith (b), unlessthisprovesimpossibleorinvolvesa disproportionateeffortto. _ RIGHT TO OBJECT Article14 Directive 95/46: "The data subject'srighttoobject". MemberStatesshallgrantthe data subjecttheright: (a) at least in the cases referredto in Article 7 (e) and (f), toobjectat any time oncompellinglegitimategroundsrelatingtohis particular situationtotheprocessing of data relatingtohim, savewhereotherwiseprovidedbynationallegislation. Wherethereis a justifiedobjection, theprocessinginstigatedbythecontrollermay no longerinvolvethose data…; (45) Explanatory Note of Directive 95/46 on the right to object: "Whereas, in cases wheredata mightlawfully be processedongrounds of publicinterest, officialauthorityorthelegitimateinterests of natural or legal person, any data subjectshouldnevertheless be entitled, onlegitimate and compellinggroundsrelatingtohis particular situation, toobjecttotheprocessing of any data relatingtohimself".

  22. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GROUNDS (II)KEY IDEAS • No Constitutionorlawobligescitizenstoappear in Google links nor in memory cache. • Google shouldimplementmeasurestoremove data fromitsindex and makeimpossibleforfutureaccess. • Today, theinformativeeffects of the Internet searchenginesdisclose universal and eternallyanonymouspeople data. • "anycitizenwithoutbeingcelebrityorpart of a publicnewsmustresignthemselves and suffertheir personal data travelling onthe Internet withoutbeingabletoreactorpreventthisillegitimateprocessing" (AEPD 266/2007) • “Requiringthe individual consent of thecitizenstoincludetheir personal data onthe Internet orrequiretechnicalmechanismsthatleakedthese data would be anunbearablebarriertofreedom of speech and informationbyway of prior censorship. Butitisalsolegitimatethatthecitizenswithoutpublicinterest can exercisetheirright of erasuretoavoidthe secular and universal maintenanceof their data ontheInternet¨ (AEPD).

  23. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GROUNDS (III)APPLICABLE LAW: EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE AND SPANISH LAW Article4 of Directive 95/46/EC: . "Nationallawapplicable 1. EachMemberStateshallapplythenationalprovisionsitadoptspursuanttothisDirectivetotheprocessing of personal data where: (a) theprocessingiscarriedout in thecontext of theactivities of anestablishment of thecontrollerontheterritory of theMemberState; ... (c) thecontrollerisnotestablishedonCommunityterritory and, forpurposes of processing personal data makes use of equipment, automatedorotherwise, situatedontheterritory of thesaidMemberState…“ ExplanatoryNote of theDirective 95/46 onarticle 4: • (18) Whereas, in ordertoensurethatindividuals are notdeprived of theprotectiontowhichthey are entitledunderthisDirective, anyprocessing of personal data in theCommunitymust be carriedout in accordancewiththelaw of one of theMemberStates…; • (19) Whereasestablishmentontheterritory of a MemberStateimpliestheeffective and real exercise of activitythroughstablearrangements; whereasthe legal form of suchanestablishment, whethersimplybranchor a subsidiarywith a legal personality, isnotthedetermining factor in thisrespect…; • (20) Whereasthefactthattheprocessing of data iscarriedoutby a personestablished in a third country mustnot stand in theway of theprotection of individualsprovidedfor in thisDirective; whereas in these cases, theprocessingshould be governedbythelaw of theMemberState in whichthemeansused are located;

  24. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GROUNDS (IV)APPLICABLE LAW: EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE AND SPANISH LAW WP 148, 4/4/2008 of Art.29 WORKING PARTY on SEARCH ENGINES: . Searchenginewhichprocessesuser data including IP addresses and / orpermanent cookies thatcontain a uniqueidentifieriscontrollerbecauseit determines thepurposes and means of theprocessingeffectively. . Searchenginethatprocesses data (personallyidentifiablesearch histories) iscontroller, regardless of thejurisdiction. . Article4 of thedirectivepursues: avoidinggaps and avoidingdifferentlawsforthesamesituation. . WhensearchengineisbeyondEuropeanUnion, Europeanlegislationisapplied: 1) ifit has establishment in Europe; (2) oriftheequipmentusedislocatedin Europe. • Searchengine uses equipment in Europe: examples: (a) data servers are located in theterritory of a State. (b) use of personal computers, terminals and servers. (c) use of cookies and similar software devices. (d) theuser'scomputerisanequipmentin thesense of thearticle 4 (1) of Directive 95/46/EC: islocatedin theterritoryof a State; controller uses thisequipmenttoprocess data; and produces technicaloperationswithoutthe control of thepersonconcerned. Controllercontrolstheuser'scomputer. Conclusionarticle 29 WP: Arts. 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (c) of the data protectiondirectiveapplytothesearchengines.

  25. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GROUNDS (V)APPLICABLE LAW: EUROPEAN DIRECTIVE AND SPANISH LAW SPANISH APLICABLE LAW . GOOGLE uses equipmentlocated in Spanishterritory. . GOOGLE is a global servicebutthere are local versionsadapted: www.Google.es. . GOOGLE visits web servers withinSpaintocollectinformationforSpaniardssearches . . Informationtrackedby GOOGLE in Spaniardservers has data frompeoplewho are notnecessarilyusers of thesearchengine and, then, data subjects. . Usermay decide thattheirsearchesrefertopages of Spain. CONCLUSION: a) GOOGLE needsto use technicalequipmentslocated in Spain. B) GOOGLE isaimed at theSpanishterritory: 1) The Google. es languageisSpanish (also, Catalan, Basque and Galician). (2) TheSpanishdomainis google.es; (3) Searches are targetingusers in Spain; (4) ItofferscontextualizedadvertisinglinkedtotheSpanishterritory. (5) Google Inc. has designated Google Spain as itsrepresentativelocated in Spanishterritory. (6) In the AEPD Register, Google Inc. has designatedGoogle Spain, S.L. as the Office whereexercise data protectionrights.

  26. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GROUNDS (VI)LIABILITY: SPANISH LAW • IN ADDITION: ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS LAW • SpanishinformationsocietyservicesAct (8.1. c): "Ifaninformationsocietyservicebreachs personal dignity, competentbodiesmay stop theserviceorwithdrawillegal data." • TheLSSI includessearchengineslikeinformationsocietyservices. • Searchengineswillnot be responsibleuntil: to) havecurrentknowledgethattheactivityorinformationisillegal; (or b) whenhavingknowledge, they do notactwithdiligencetoeliminatethe link. • Thesearchengine has currentknowledgewhen a competentbody has declaredthat data are illegal, has ordereditswithdrawalortoavoidtheaccess.

  27. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: GOOGLE GROUNDS (VII) • GOOGLE SPAIN isnotresponsibleforthesearchesonthe Internet service; • GOOGLE SPAIN onlyrepresentsto GOOGLE INC. toselladvertising. • GOOGLE INC. isresponsibleforrightsorcomplaints. • GOOGLE INC. onlyconsidersapplicableUnitedStatesLaw and notEuropeanDirectiveorSpanishlaw. • GOOGLE INC. considersthatthesearches are onwebsite of thirdpartieswhoseaccessispublic and toeliminateresultsrequiresthecollaboration of thewebmaster.

  28. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: DIGITAL MEDIA (VIII)SPECIFIC CRITERIA (a) • NEWS in digital media isfreedom of informationprotectedbytheConstitution. • Freedomof informationprevails (preference) onother fundamental rightsifnewsis true and has publicinterest. • Directive95/46: "(37) Whereastheprocessing of personal data forpurposes of journalismorforpurposes of literary of artisticexpression, in particular in the audiovisual field, shouldqualifyforexemptionfromtherequirements of certainprovisions of thisDirective in so far as thisisnecessarytoreconcilethe fundamental rights of individualswithfreedom of information and notablytherighttoreceive and impartinformation”. • .Toreconcilethefreedom of expression and data protectionmustrespondtotheright of opposition. Directive 95/46/EC: (45)" "Whereas, in cases where data mightlawfully be processedongrounds of publicinterest, officialauthorityorthelegitimateinterests of a natural or legal person, anydata subjectshouldnevertheless be entitled, onlegitimate and compellinggroundsrelatingtohis particular situation, toobjecttotheprocessing of any data relatingtohimself”.

  29. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: DIGITAL MEDIA (IX)SPECIFIC CRITERIA (b) • Lawdoesnotimposeanyoneto be included in theGoogle links or"cache". • Google shouldimplementmeasurestoremove data fromitsindexand topreventfutureaccess. • A journalisticnewsisprotectedbytheConstitution, butthedevelopment of the Internet and searchengines (GOOGLE) represent a universal and permanentdissemination of theinformationcontained in media. • Thereforeitwould be desirablethat, ifthereis a legitimateinterest of an individual butwithouterasinginformation (withouterasing files orhistorical records), thewebmaster of digital media shouldpreventindexing of thenewsby GOOGLE (toavoidanindiscriminate, permanent and harmfuldissemination).

  30. AEPD RESOLUTIONS: OFFICIAL GAZETTES (X)SPECIFIC CRITERIA . OfficialGazetteis a publicbodywhichpublishesmandatorybylawinformation. . OfficialGazettemustmaintainauthenticity and integrity of thecontentswithoutmanipulatinginformationalreadypublished. • ButOfficialGazettemustcomplywiththeData ProtectionAct: _ OfficialGazettesprocess data, fullyorpartiallyautomated. _ OfficialGazettesshouldtakethenecessarymeasurestopreventtheindiscriminatedisclosure of personal data throughthe Internet searchengines. _ Citizencannotavoidits data beingincluded in theofficialgazettebut he can oppose (ifthereisa legitimateand foundedreason) his data beingcollectedbythe Internet searchengines. _ Example: aftera longtime sincethepublication of anadministrativenotification and notexisting more general interest, protectingtheprivacyis a legitimateinterest. • AEPD considersthat, in thecurrentstate of thetechnology(technicalimprovementscan be incorporatedin thefuture), theadoption of theProtocol of theindustrycalled "robots.txt" is a validmethodtoaddresstherights of erasureorobjectiontoanofficialgazette, avoidingindexing of alreadypublished data.

  31. PRELIMINARY RULING LODGE INTO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY THE SPANISH NATIONAL COURT ON 2/27/2012: AEPD VERSUSGOOGLEMAIN QUESTIONS (I) 1. Territorial application of Directive 95/46/EC and theSpanishlaw: 1.1 Can be interpretedthatthereis a "establishment” (art.4.1.a) of Directive 95/46): • whena searchenginecreates in a Statean office for sale of advertisingaddressedtotheresidents of thatState?, or • whena companyappointsonesubsidiarylocated in a State as itsrepresentative and responsiblefortwospecific files with data fromclientswhohireadvertising? Or • whenthe office in a Statevoluntarilytransferstothecompany, locatedoutsidetheEuropeanUnion, therequests and requirements of usersor data protectionauthorities?

  32. PRELIMINARY RULING LODGE INTO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY THE SPANISH NATIONAL COURT ON 2/27/2012: AEPD VERSUS GOOGLEMAIN QUESTIONS (II) 1.2 Can be interpretedarticle 4.1.c of Directive 95/46 in thesensethatthere are "equipmentslocated in theterritory of thatMemberState"? • whena searchengine uses spiders o robots tolocate and indexinformationcontained in websiteslocatedon servers of thatState? or • when a searchengineconductssearches and resultsdependingonthelanguage of thatState?. 1.3 Can be consideredequipment, undertheterms of article 4.1. c of Directive 95/46/EC, thetemporarystorage of informationindexedbysearchenginesontheInternet? 1.4. Irrespective of article 4 of theDirective, • ShouldtheDirective 95/46/EC applyon data protectionrights, in the light of article 8 of theEuropeanCharter of fundamental rights, in theStatewheretheviolation of rightsislocated and whereitispossible a more effectiveprotection of thecitizensrights?

  33. PRELIMINARY RULING LODGE INTO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY THE SPANISH NATIONAL COURT ON 2/27/2012: AEPD VERSUS GOOGLEMAIN QUESTIONS (III) 2. Searchengines as serviceproviders in relationtoDirective 95/46/EC: 2.1. Aboutthe Google activity ( tolocateinformationpublishedorincluded in thenetworkbythirdparties, indexautomatically, temporarilystore and offerittouserswithanorder of preference): • Isincluded in the concept of "data processing" (d) article 2(b) of Directive 95/46/EC? 2.2 Google is "controllerfortheprocessing" of data fromtheindexed web pages? 2.3. Can the AEPD requiredirectlyto Google towithdrawfromits indexes informationpublishedbythirdparties, withoutapproaching prior orsimultaneouslythewebmasterwheretheinformationislocated?. 2.4. Willthesearchenginesresponsibilitytoprotecttheserightsbe excludedwhenlawfullypublishedbythirdparties are maintainedonthewebsite of origin?

  34. PRELIMINARY RULING LODGE INTO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION BY THE SPANISH NATIONAL COURT ON 2/27/2012: AEPD VERSUS GOOGLEMAIN QUESTIONS (IV) 3. Theright of erasure and /orobjection and therightto be forgotten: • 3.1. Do rights of erasure and blockage of theDirective 95/46/EC includethatthepersonconcerned can askforsearchenginestopreventtheindexing of data publishedonwebsites of thirdparties, in ordertoavoid Internet usersaccesstothemwhenhe considersthatit can harmhimorhe simplywantsto be forgotten (evenifdata are lawfullypublishedbythirdparties data)?

  35. MAIN CONCLUSIONS • RtbFisnotcensorship: notproactiveapproach. • RtbFis a rightbasedonlegitimateinterest and individual grounds: reactive approach. • RtbFmust be reconciled/balancedwithfreedom of information • RtbFshould be ensuredby media applyingavailableexistingtechnicalmeasures. • RtbFmust be ensuredbysearchenginesonthe Internet - they are not media - “taking into consideration available technology” and “investing in new technicaltools”.

More Related