G+_George Kozi Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 The right to be forgotten does NOT apply to criminal convictions. Mike Elgan Leo Laporte Jeff Jarvis Not so long ago there was a lot of fingerpointing and snarking about the right to be forgotten. Sometimes, I even got the impression that I was watching a stampede of journalists pointing out only the most extreme and ridiculous examples of the use of this right. It wasn't pretty. (It reminded me of pundits on Fox TV warning of death panels if the ACA was adopted.) Well, here we go: the courts (european courts) have clarified at least one part of this thing. Criminal records and links to articles referring to them are pertinent and relevant information , so Google does not have to remove them if asked. Unherneeth, you will find the relevant passage from a Dutch article that apeared on the security.nl site. (I'm not a professional translator and my English is self-thought, so keep that in mind. However, this is how I read the passage in Dutch, and translate it to English.) ... according to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, one can oppose the display of search results when they are "irrelevant," "excessive" or "unnecessarily defamatory". The judge ruled that negative publicity as a result of a serious crime in general is accurate, permanent, and relevant information about a person. So no, links referring to criminal convictions does not have to be removed by search engines under the Right to be forgotten legislation. Now the tech journalists can remove that kind of example from their objections, and concentrate on the other kinds... https://www.security.nl/posting/402718/Google+hoeft+persoonsgegevens+crimineel+niet+te+verwijderen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_mal disposto Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 Thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Phillip Stewart Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 The convicted still pester Google asking for them to be removed. Did the original ruling state this or is this a new ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_Phillip Stewart Posted September 21, 2014 Share Posted September 21, 2014 I see it is a new ruling. Does it apply to the whole EU or just the Netherlands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G+_George Kozi Posted September 21, 2014 Author Share Posted September 21, 2014 this was a Dutch case in a Dutch court. The court in Amsterdam interpreted and applied the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (which is a higher court) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts